McQueen v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably McQueen v. Scroggy (1996), Clark v. Texas (1987)
4 federal appellate · 30 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 · Glasser v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Duren v. Missouri · Jizmejian v. United States
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.
“A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no basis for McQueen’s argument that death penalty cases are so different as to represent an entirely different area of expertise. Strickland, supra, sets the standard for effectiveness of counsel and it was a case involving the death penalty. 721 S.W.2d at 701 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In view of the fact that the individual allegations have no merit, they can have no cumulative value.”
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.