Galowski v. Berge’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.3d 1176 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Holman v. Gilmore (1997), Eddmonds v. Peters (1996)
20 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Dusky v. United States · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Medina v. California · Fussell v. Price
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A habeas petitioner must first present substantial facts to support allegations that he was not competent to stand trial. Substantial facts are facts sufficient to positively, unequivocally and clearly generate a real, substantial and legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the petitioner to meaningfully participate and cooperate with counsel during the trial. If the petitioner presents substantial facts and shows that the state court provided inadequate procedures, he has satisfied his burden.”
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.