Herbert Eugene Blanchard v. Lou v. Brewer, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under certain circumstances failure to perfect an appeal is denial of effective counsel. Leventhal v. Gavin, 1 Cir., 1968, 396 F.2d 441 . See, also, Entsminger v. Iowa, 1967, 386 U.S. 748 , 87 S.Ct. 1402 , 18 L.Ed.2d 501 . Indeed, failure by appointed or retained counsel to commence the simple steps for appeal is a blatant denial of due process. Atilus v. United States, supra, 406 F.2d 694 ; Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 548 ; Wainwright v. Simpson, 5 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 307 . Distinctions between gross or simple negligence on the part of counsel, or between retained or appointed counsel, or between active or passive negligence on the part of the state are immaterial. Whether counsel’s conduct is classified as gross or excusable negligence or whether the state’s activity is classified as passive or active is irrelevant, since in either case appellee has been denied effective and complete appellate review through no fault of his own. Compare, Shipman v. Gladden, Or., 1969, 453 P.2d 921 (notice of appeal served on opposing counsel but not timely filed) with Williams v. United States, supra, 402 F.2d 548 (where counsel did not even commence appellate proceedings). In Shipman, the Supreme Court of Oregon stated at page 925 of 453 P. 2d: “ ‘The failure to perform the simple procedure of timely filing a notice of appeal is not the “effective” assistance of counsel required by Powell v. Alabama [ 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 ], nor the diligent advo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kime v. Brewer

2. ““Iowa contends that the court erred by holding appellee was denied effective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of § 793.4 and that the State of Iowa in no way contributed to his denial of counsel. More specifically, Iowa maintains only gross misconduct on the part of retained counsel, such as a complete failure to commence an appeal, e. g., Atilus v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 694 , or affirmative coercion on the part of the state forcing a man to abandon his right of appeal, e. g., Ford v. State, 1965, 258 Iowa 137 , 138 N.W.2d 116 , constitute an effective denial of due process by requiring a criminal defendant to relinquish appellate review. It is argued that counsel’s erroneous but good-faith attempted service and Iowa’s mere acquiescence therein are not sufficient basis for violation of due process in this factual situation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kime v. Brewer

3. ““The failure of counsel to take the simple steps required to file a notice of appeal when instructed by his client to do so would, as stated by the District of Columbia Circuit in Dillane v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 354 , 350 F.2d 732 , constitutes (sic) ‘such an extraordinary inattention to a client’s interests as to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable under Section 2255.’ ” 402 F.2d at 552 . (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 335 F. Supp. 651 - Lansdown v. Swenson