State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1,642 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,653 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Smith (1997), State v. Garner (1995)
4 federal appellate · 1,642 state decisions
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 · Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Jenks · Edwards v. Arizona · State v. Bradley
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · State v. Thompkins · State v. Bradley · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin
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 1,653 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prejudice from defective representation sufficient to justify reversal of a conviction exists only where the result of the trial was unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair because of the performance of trial counsel.”
71 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
35 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.”
29 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.