Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 Cal. 3d 1063 - In Re Fields

51 Cal. 3d 1063 - In Re Fields’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Cullen v. Pinholster (2011), Cullen v. Pinholster (2011)

16 federal appellate · 147 state decisions

850199020002010decided

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 · United States v. Agurs · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Hitchcock v. Dugger · 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope

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

  1. “[A] court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. . . . If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “defend himself against a claim of ineffective assistance after trial rather than to defend his client against criminal charges at trial....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A reference hearing following issuance of an order to show cause is subject to the rules of evidence as codified in the Evidence Code. (See Evid. Code, § 300.) Under those rules, an out-of-court declaration is hearsay, and unless subject to some exception permitting it to be admitted, should be excluded upon timely and proper objection. (See Evid. Code, § 1200.) . . . An expert witness, however, may base an opinion on reliable hearsay, including out-of-court declarations of other persons. [Citations.]”
    2 later decisions 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.