Roach v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 1463 · 1985
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Hatch v. Oklahoma (1995), Beets v. Scott (1995)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a comparative [proportionality] review is not constitutionally mandated”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal court must grant an evidentia-ry hearing to a habeas applicant under the following circumstances: If (1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing; (2) the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record as a whole; (3) the fact-finding procedure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence; (5) the material facts were not adequately developed at the state-court hearing; or (6) for any reason it appears that the state trier of fact did not afford the habeas applicant a full and fair fact hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circum stances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time— [A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.””
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.