Hannan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A remedial statute affords a private remedy to a person injured by a wrongful act, corrects an existing law or redresses an existing grievance, gives a party a mode of remedy for a wrong where none or a different remedy existed, or remedies defects in the common law and in civil jurisprudence generally. Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights, while procedural law governs the practice, method, procedure, or legal machinery by which the substantive law is enforced or made effective.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 924 F. Supp. 2d 1005 - Lenius v. Deere & Co. · 925 F. Supp. 2d 1056 - Forster v. Deere & Co.

2. “814.7. Ineffective assistance claim on appeal in a criminal case. 1. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a criminal case shall be determined by filing an application for postconviction relief pursuant to chapter 822, except as otherwise provided in this section. The claim need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes. 2. A party may, but is not required to, raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings if the party has reasonable grounds to believe that the record is adequate to address the claim on direct appeal. 3. If an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings, the court may decide the record is adequate to decide the claim or may choose to preserve the claim for determination under chapter 822.”

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

3. ““To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must show that (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted.” There is a presumption the attorney acted competently, and prejudice will not be found unless there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roger B. Ennenga v. State of Iowa