Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 F.2d 697 - Smith v. Ol McCotter

Smith v. Ol McCotter’s Empirical Analysis

786 F.2d 697 · 1986

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
3
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Montgomery (Slip Opinion) (2016), United States v. Newman (1990)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

2301986199020002010decided

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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Hill v. Lockhart · Tollett v. Henderson · Lisenba v. People of State of California

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

  1. “ ‘prove (1) exactly what the terms of the alleged promise were; (2) exactly when, where, and by whom such a promise was made; and (3) the precise identity of an eyewitness to the promise.’ ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “State courts are under no constitutional duty to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea prior to its acceptance . . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.”
    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.