Hollon v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “claims will not be premised on inartful arguments or missed case citations; rather counsel must have omitted completely an issue that should have been presented on direct appeal.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prescott v. Commonwealth · Smith v. Commonwealth

2. “Our ruling is to have prospective effect only. It applies to this case, to cases pending on appeal in which the issue has been raised and preserved, and to cases currently in or hereafter brought in the trial court in which the issue is raised. Prospective application is appropriate because, although our courts have not until now provided a forum for [ineffective assistance of appellate counsel] claims based on an allegedly inadequate appellate brief, the federal courts have provided a forum through habeas review. See Boykin v. Webb, [ 541 F.3d 638 (6th Cir.2008) ]. Kentucky defendants have not, therefore, been denied an opportunity to vindicate their right to effective appellate counsel, and there is thus no need for our decision today to reach back and operate retroactively.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanders v. Commonwealth

3. “We hold, therefore, that Hicks [v. Commonwealth, 825 S.W.2d 280 (Ky. 1992) ]-type IAAC claims may henceforth be pursued by motion in the trial court of conviction under RCr 11.42_ For clarity, we note some general principles regarding the courts’ roles in review of IAAC claims. The trial court will address the IAAC issue under the aforementioned standards entering findings and an appropriate order pursuant to RCr 11.42(6). Once the trial court rules on a defendant’s IAAC claim, that court’s order will be reviewable in the same manner as orders addressing RCr 11.42 motions are currently reviewed. See RCr 11.42(7) (either movant or Commonwealth may appeal from court’s final order on RCr 11.42 motion).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Commonwealth