Seales v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Sanders v. State (1987), Richardson v. State (1986)
208 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 Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Holloway v. Arkansas · Geders v. United States · Herring v. New York
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show (1) that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances, and (2) that he was thereby prejudiced.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The accepted standard for effectiveness of trial counsel is now established as that degree of performance which conforms to the care and skill of a reasonably competent lawyer rendering similar services under the existing circumstances, (cases omitted).... Finally, the exercise of reasonable judgment, even when hindsight reveals a mistake in that judgment, does not render a lawyer negligent or lacking in competence in rendering his services.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Scott v. State · Wilson v. State““We believe the allegations made by the movant in the motion were sufficiently factual in nature to have warranted a hearing on the motion. It may very well be that the state could have required the movant to state the matter with more particularity; however, insofar as the motion to dismiss is concerned, we believe the motion was sufficient to have required the overruling of the motion to dismiss and to hold an evidentiary hearing . . . The trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing in the matter and for that reason the cause must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on movant’s 27.26 motion which may, of course, be amended.” 580 S.W.2d at 734 . 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. State
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.