Fernandez v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably State v. Litherland (2000), Andrews v. Deland (1991)
4 federal appellate · 32 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 Madsen v. Borthick · 21 Utah 2d 96 - Brown v. Turner · Codianna v. Morris · Bundy v. Deland · State v. Arroyo
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“party may not raise issues in a habeas corpus petition that could or should have been raised on direct appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is imperiled if an alleged violation of that right cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding when the allegedly ineffective trial counsel also represented the defendant on appeal and failed to raise the issue at that stage.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Krebs v. Weber · Fernandez v. Cook“I, Earl Xiaz, the Attorney in the above Affidavit state: That I realize that my Client may not use the remedy of a Ha-beas Corpus as a substitute for a Direct Appeal. That a petitioner cannot raise issues in a Habeas proceeding that could or should have been raised on Direct Appeal. My Client has had the desire to raise other issues like Ineffectiveness of Counsel, but I have discouraged him from going in that direction because there is nothing in the record to support the claim. Thus, an evidentiary hearing is required in which trial counsel should be called as a witness. They do not fit the rules for Direct Appeal points. My Client under my direction had left this point out because I have advised him to. If at a later date there arises a controversy from another court, I take full responsibility for my Clients’ failure to bring up this point. I will be available at any time to answer any questions as to my judgements in Richard L. Jensen’s Supreme Court Appeal or any other remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jensen v. DeLand
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.