Thomas v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.2d 407 · 1976
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 1994 · most notably Cooper v. Fitzharris (1978), United States v. Decoster (1976)
64 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Wingo v. Wedding · United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · Mark Trail Camp Grounds, Inc. v. Field Enterprises, Inc. · Perez v. United States
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]etitioner's proof of prejudice should not be defeated by the district court's low opinion of the credibility of relevant and admissible testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“‘Our inquiry as to whether or not to grant relief is not concluded by finding a constitutional violation in the failure of petitioner’s attorney to make an adequate investigation of the case. Evaluation of a habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is a two-step process; first determining whether there has been some failure to perform some duty, as essential as the duty of investigation, owed by a defense attorney to his client; and second, determining . . . whether that failure prejudiced his defense. . . ’ Thomas, supra, at 413 — 414.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the petitioner must shoulder an initial burden of showing the existence of admissible evidence which could have been uncovered by reasonable investigation and which would have proved helpful to the defendant either on cross-examination or in his case-in-chief at the original trial. Once this showing is made, a new trial is warranted unless the court is able to declare a belief that the omission of such evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.