Williams v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “(1) the claim of "ineffective assistance of trial counsel" was a "substantial" claim; (2) the "cause" consisted of there being "no counsel" or only "ineffective" counsel during the state collateral review proceeding; (3) the state collateral review proceeding was the "initial" review proceeding in respect to the "ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim"; and (4) state law requires that an "ineffective assistance of trial counsel [claim] ... be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hill v. Mitchell · Stojetz v. Ishee

2. “it 'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases' or if it 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [this] precedent.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Issa v. Bradshaw

3. “the Court modified the fourth element to apply to situations where state law makes it 'highly unlikely' that a defendant will have a 'meaningful opportunity' to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stojetz v. Ishee