People v. Tomaselli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

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

1. “The test to be applied in determining the legal adequacy of the allegations of appellant's petition is readily stated: `The requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment is for a fair trial'; the due process clause `prohibits the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right.' Compliance with this standard required that appellant, charged with a capital offense, be represented at trial by counsel. "But the constitutional requirement of representation at trial is one of substance, not of form. It could not be satisfied by a pro forma or token appearance. Appellant was entitled to effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 So. 2d 53 - Stewart v. State

2. ““. . . [T]here is denial of effective representation of counsel only when the representation given is so patently lacking in competence or adequacy that it becomes the duty of the court to be aware of it and correct it. Indeed, to hold otherwise would require a rule that a conviction must be vacated solely on the ground that assigned counsel was negligent or otherwise at fault in performing his duty. Although we do not condone or make light of an alleged failure on the part of any lawyer to serve his client adequately, it furnishes no basis either in reason or authority for setting aside a judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State