Field v. Hallett’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Harrington v. Richter · Jones v. United States · Commonwealth v. Saferian
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]ederal habeas courts must guard against the danger of equating unreasonableness under Strickland with unreasonableness under § 2254(d). When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether [Petitioner's trial] counsel's actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that [his trial] counsel satisfied Strickland's deferential standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 'contrary to' clause applies when 'the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f - 27 - the petitioner does succeed in demonstrating error, 'it is still not enough to win because [he] must also illustrate actual prejudice resulted from the mistake.'”
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.