Perillo v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
79 F.3d 441 · 1996
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Alberto Valdez v. Janie Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division - (2001), United States v. Villarreal (2003)
26 federal appellate · 2 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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Blackledge v. Allison · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Yohey v. Collins
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'if resolved in the petitioner's favor, would entitle [the petitioner] to relief and the state has not afforded the petitioner a full and fair hearing,' a federal habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lave v. Dretke · Rector v. Johnson“An “actual conflict” exists when an attorney represents two clients whose interests in the outcome of a matter are different. We have found actual conflict when one client would benefit by a person testifying and one client would be harmed by it. “The petitioner must specifically identify instances in the record that reflect that his counsel made a choice between possible alternative courses of action such as eliciting (or failing to elicit) evidence helpful to one client but harmful to the other.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o show adverse effect, a petitioner must demonstrate that some plausible defense strategy or tactic might have been pursued but was not, because of the conflict of interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.