Glenn v. Aiken’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 25 Cal. 4th 1194 - Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001), 19 Cal. 4th 532 - Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 104 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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 · Nader v. Citron · Fayerweather v. Ritch · Washington v. Strickland · Fishman v. Brooks
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he public has a strong interest in encouraging the representation of criminal defendants, especially indigents.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rowe v. Schreiber · Gibson v. Trant“clear negligence whose causal connection to the conviction is clear”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from negligent representation in a criminal proceeding, plaintiff must allege his innocence or a colorable claim of innocence of the underlying offense [citation omitted], for so long as the determination of his guilt of that offense remains undisturbed, no cause of action will lie. Here, because plaintiff's conviction * * * has not been successfully challenged, he can neither assert, nor establish, his innocence. He has thus failed to state a cause of action * * *. " * * * [B]ecause he cannot assert his innocence, public policy prevents maintenance of a malpractice action against his attorney. This is so because criminal prosecutions involve constitutional and procedural safeguards designed to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect criminal defendants from overreaching governmental actions. These aspects of criminal proceedings make criminal malpractice cases unique, and policy considerations require different pleading and substantive rules (see, e.g., Kaus & Mallen, The Misguiding Hand of CounselReflections on 'Criminal Malpractice', 21 UCLA L Rev 1191 [1974]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevens v. Bispham
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.