Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 NW2D 438 - Anderson v. State

Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
April 2009
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2009

9 state decisions

50198519902000decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · United States v. Morrison

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he defendant [must] show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Loop v. Solem, 398 N.W.2d 140, 141 (S.D.1986) (citing Anderson v. State, 373 N.W.2d 438 (S.D. 1985) (overruled on other grounds )). In reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of representation, we must determine whether counsel exercised the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.