Key v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 133 · 1986
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley (1996), United States v. Arvanitis (1990)
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Central District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · Blackledge v. Allison
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant must do more than merely allege a promise by counsel; he or she must provide some evidence that allows the court to meaningfully assess his or her claim. A defendant in such a situation might allege, in addition to alleging the Hill requirements, what the terms of the alleged promises by counsel were; when, where, and by whom such promises were made; and the precise identity of any witnesses to the promise.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court shall not accept a plea of guilty ... without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also inquire as to whether the defendant's willingness to plead guilty ... results from prior discussions between the attorney for the state and the defendant or the defendant's attorney.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Admittedly, the prejudice part of the Hill-Strickland test may pose a difficulty in some cases because it is by no means obvious how a court is to determine the probability that a defendant would have gone to trial. It is clear enough that a defendant must make more than a bare allegation that he `would have pleaded differently and gone to trial,' but it is not clear how much more is required of him.”
2 later decisions 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.