Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 So. 2d 103 - State v. Lobato

621 So. 2d 103 - State v. Lobato’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2016

24 state decisions

170199320002010decided

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 Cuyler v. Sullivan · 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb · 436 So. 2d 475 - State v. Kahey · Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Johnson

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

  1. “... must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance in order to establish a claim.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Defendant's assertions that he was denied effective assistance of counsel are purely speculative and do not rise to the level of showing an actual conflict of interest. Defendant's allegation that the conflict of interest prevented Mr. Jefferson from calling Phillips as a witness is pure conjecture. There is no indication that Phillips would have waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Rather, from Mr. Jefferson's testimony regarding Phillips's reluctance to testify, such a waiver would appear unlikely. Importantly, Mr. Jefferson stated that Phillips and Lobato gave him the same story. The record does not indicate that Phillips would have testified that Lobato was an innocent dupe to Phillips's drug kingpin. A defendant claiming that a conflict of interest resulted in his counsel's failure to call a witness must do more than point to a witness's failure to testify, the defendant must specifically identify what testimony was denied to the jury and how this adversely affected the defendant. United States v. Abner, 825 F.2d 835 (5 Cir.1987).”
    1 later decision 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.