727 So. 2d 216 - Rutherford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 768 So. 2d 1037 - Occhicone v. State (2000), 774 So. 2d 637 - Rutherford v. Moore (2000)
4 federal appellate · 123 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 · Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve · 446 So. 2d 1038 - Lusk v. State · 675 So. 2d 567 - Rose v. State · 573 So. 2d 293 - Medina v. State
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“deprived the defendant of a reliable penalty phase proceeding.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Henry v. State · Rodriguez v. State“[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Valle v. State · Rolling v. State
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.