Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 F. Supp. 2d 1164 - Wanatee v. Ault

39 F. Supp. 2d 1164 - Wanatee v. Ault’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2013

1 state decisions

30199920002010decided

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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Cuyler v. Sullivan · McMann v. Richardson · Jusino v. Brown

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. “What a criminal defendant wants or does not want is not relevant to counsel’s duty to inform the defendant of the law applicable to the defendant’s case, so that the defendant can evaluate a plea offer. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 62 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (White, J., concurring) (recognizing counsel’s duty to inform a criminal defendant of relevant law). Nor are there any “ ‘distorting effects of hindsight,’” see Report and Recommendation at p. 20 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ), in the evaluation of trial counsel’s performance resulting from the outcome of [the defendant’s] prosecution that apply to the deficiency [the defendant] has actually alleged, because the duty to provide advice concerning applicable law is independent of any outcome.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].”
    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.