Lee v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2011
7 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · State v. McCafferty · State v. Tchida · Jones v. State
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he appropriate test for determining prejudice in this situation is rooted in the test for materiality of exculpatory information not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution and in the test for the materiality of exculpatory information made unavailable to the defense by Government deportation of a witness. The 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conaty v. Solem“When reviewing [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims this court has applied both the more stringent standard of South Dakota and the less stringent standard presented in Strickland v. Washington .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. Solem“must normally fulfill the twofold test stated in Strickland v. Washington .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. Solem
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.