Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 P2D 592 - Cartwright v. State

Cartwright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2010 · most notably Maynard v. Cartwright (1988), State v. Powell (1990)

12 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

2201985199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Ake v. Oklahoma · Jones v. Barnes · Evitts v. Lucey · Teague v. Tennessee

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

  1. “Legal contentions, like the currency, depreciate through over-issue. The mind of an appellate judge is habitually receptive to the suggestion that a lower court committed an error. But receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at lack of confidence in any one ... [Experience on the bench convinces me that multiplying assignments of error will dilute and weaken a good case and will not save a bad one. (citation omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... In the present ease, we recognize that different trial counsel may have spent more time preparing the case, filed more pre-trial motions, asked more questions during jury selection, presented more evidence and made more objections during trial. Another appellate attorney may have raised more assignments of error on direct appeal. “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.” (cite omitted). However, our review of this issue cannot be governed by hindsight, but must focus on whether appellant’s attorneys provided reasonably effective assistance. We have examined each of propositions of error alleged above, individually and in the aggregate, and conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged unprofessional errors, the results of either the trial or the direct appeal would have been dif- ■ ferent. (cite omitted).”
    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.