Goeders v. Hundley’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 73 · 1995
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 115 Ohio St. 3d 22 - State v. Mundt (2007), Hughes v. United States (2001)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Smith v. Phillips · Rushen v. Spain · Weissbrodt v. White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona · Dennis 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must show that the juror was actually biased against him”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Phillips , the Supreme Court examined cases treating claims of implied juror bias, and rejected implied bias in cases of alleged juror bias. 455 U.S. at 215-17 , 102 S.Ct. at 944-46. Instead, “the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.” Id. at 215, 102 S.Ct. at 945. Just such a hearing was held by the state court on postconviction review in this case, and, on the basis of this hearing, the state court denied Goeders’ petition for postconviction review. Although the order denying postconviction review is unfortunately not in the record before this Court, it is clear from the transcript of the hearing that the central issue before the state court was whether Huriburt was biased. Because Goeders’ claim on review was that his counsel was ineffective in conducting voir dire, and because this claim was based entirely on the premise that Huriburt was biased, we assume that the state court made the finding necessary to the denial of Goe- ders’ ineffective assistance claim: that Hurlburt was not actually biased.”
1 later decision 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.