United States v. Junne’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 1156 · 1972
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1994
5 federal appellate ·
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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Gutknecht v. United States · Moore v. United States · United States v. Zmuda · United States ex rel. Johnson H-6753 v. Russell
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In applying this [normal competency] standard, the time of appointment of counsel should not be seen in vacuo, but rather should be viewed in light of all the “attendant circumstances” [citing Moore, 432 F.2d at 735 ]. Paramount among these circumstances are the preparation difficulties of a case and the experience of a particular lawyer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.