Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 SW3D 98 - Buck, Duane Edward

Buck, Duane Edward’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Gideon v. Wainwright · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes

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.

  1. “when an applicant can demonstrate that initial habeas counsel's performance fell below the minimum standards for representation set forth in Article 11.071, and when an applicant can demonstrate that, as a result of counsel's incompetence, a substantial claim for relief was forfeited, this Court may properly exercise its habeas jurisdiction to consider the merits of the underlying claim”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “when an applicant's statutory entitlement to minimally competent assistance of habeas counsel has been denied, and where such denial has led to the forfeiture of a substantial claim for relief, this Court should declare the initial filing improper and adjudicate the claim on the merits”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “to the extent that it precludes consideration of a statutory claim [under Article 11.071 ] that initial habeas counsel's performance was so incompetent as to render the initial application frivolous and, therefore, void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.