Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 738 F.2d 304 - Thomas v. Al Lockhart

Thomas v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis

738 F.2d 304 · 1984

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Hill v. Lockhart (1985), Sanders v. State (1987)

52 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 states

51019841990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · McMann v. Richardson · Sumner v. Mata · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · United States v. Security Industrial Bank

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

  1. “[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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Reasonably effective assistance may be defined as `the skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “investigation of the case consisted of reviewing the investigative file of the prosecuting attorney”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.