Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 382 F.3d 670 - Rodriguez v. Chandler

Rodriguez v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

382 F.3d 670 · 2004

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

170200420102020decided

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. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Arizona v. Fulminante

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

  1. “an identifiable difference in the quality of representation between the disqualified counsel and the attorney who represents the defendant at trial. The difference does not have to be great enough to undermine confidence in the outcome — that is the standard under Strickland — but it must be enough to show that the defendant’s representation suffered a setback.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is hard to see why violations of the qualified right to counsel of choice should lead to automatic reversal, when deprivation of the absolute right to a competent attorney leads to relief only if prejudice is demonstrable.”
    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.