Castillo v. Matesanz’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.3d 1 · 2003
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Cortés-Rivera v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2010), In Re William C. Sheridan
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Thomas v. Arn · Bell Warden v. Cone · Ungar v. Sarafite
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“first, trial counsel's performance [was] deficient in some way sufficiently substantial to deny him effective representation; and second, that deficiency . . . result[ed] in prejudice, defined as a 'reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result . . . would have been different.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [Supreme Court] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Locke v. Cattell“fell measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.