Barrow v. Uchtman’s Empirical Analysis
398 F.3d 597 · 2005
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Wisehart v. Davis (2005), Julian v. Bartley (2007)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Cronic · Darden v. Wainwright · Bell Warden v. Cone
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that where a lawyer has promised the jury that a criminal defendant will testify in his own defense, and then unreasonably breaks this promise by not calling the defendant to the stand, such an error is both objectively unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant”). 3 .Id.; Malicoat v. State, 992 P.2d 383, 401 (Okla.2000) (although not reversible error, such conduct by a prosecutor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [ ] the accused is `denied the presence of counsel at a critical stage' in proceedings, (2)[if] counsel `entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing' or (3)[if] `counsel is called upon to render assistance under circumstances where competent counsel very likely could not.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Vannatta
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.