Underdahl v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[a]lthough hindsight may make a decision appear unwise or unsound, when scrutinizing counsel’s performance a court “must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel’s assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel’s defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 358 F. Supp. 2d 738 - Sillick v. Ault

2. “`must do more than show that he would have satisfied Strickland's test if his claims were being analyzed in the first instance [by the federal habeas court.... ] Under § 2254(d)(1), it is not enough to convince a federal habeas court that, in its independent judgment, the state-court decision applied Strickland incorrectly. Rather he must show that the [state court] applied Strickland to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 555 F. Supp. 2d 1000 - Shaw v. DWYEAR