Ward v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.3d 692 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Hill v. Lockhart · Picard v. Connor · Jones v. Barnes
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we presume that counsel’s actions fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and defer to strategic decision-making by a trial attorney. Despite this weighty deference, we nonetheless must carefully cohsider whether the attorney brought to bear the skill and knowledge that allows for a proper adversarial testing process, considering all the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Duncan“Given this posture, [my] inquiry is limited to whether [Gish] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to try and develop facts that would support his petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gish v. Dittmann“he has alleged facts which, if proved, would entitle him to habeas relief”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gish v. Dittmann
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.