Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 F.2d 228 - Eldridge v. Atkins

Eldridge v. Atkins’s Empirical Analysis

665 F.2d 228 · 1981

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
5
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably 128 Ill. 2d 66 - People v. Flores (1989), Laws v. Armontrout (1988)

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

460198119902000decided

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 Neil v. Biggers · Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Brewer v. Williams · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “[i]t is the duty of the lawyer to conduct a prompt investigation of the circumstances of the case and explore all avenues leading to facts relevant to guilt and degree of guilt or penalty. The investigation should always include efforts to secure information in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities. The duty to investigate exists regardless of the accused’s admissions or statements to the lawyer of facts constituting guilt or his stated desire to plead guilty. [Id. at 232, quoting American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function § 4.1.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[c]ounsel's 'strategy' not to use [certain witnesses] was not so much trial strategy as it was an accommodation to his own inadequate trial preparation. ... although it may have been a trial decision of counsel not to pursue [certain] testimony it was counsel's lack of preparation which went a long way in inducing him to make it”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “* * * Counsel need not attain perfection, but he must exercise reasonable diligence to produce exculpatory evidence.”
    2 later decisions 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.