Johnson v. Uribe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “First, Mr. Durdines did not perform an adequate investigation into the facts of [Johnson’s] case or the sentence en hancements alleged against [Johnson] before [Johnson] pleaded guilty. Indeed, prior to [Johnson]’s guilty plea, Mr. Durdines had not interviewed [Johnson] about the charges and enhancements alleged against him, had not discussed the facts of [Johnson’s] case or the alleged priors with anyone in the district attorney’s office, had done absolutely no investigation into [Johnson’s] prior convictions, and had not done any legal research on possible sentencing options ... Rather, Mr. Durdines blindly and blithely accepted the accuracy of the sentence enhancements alleged against [Johnson] in the first amended information.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Uribe

2. “(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Uribe