Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 815 F.2d 1401 - Smith v. White

Smith v. White’s Empirical Analysis

815 F.2d 1401 · 1987

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
9
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth (1988), United States v. Bowie (1990)

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

48019871990200020102020decided

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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Miller v. Fenton · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico

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

  1. “demonstrate that the attorney 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.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) [Where] counsel’s earlier representation of the witness was substantially and particularly related to counsel’s later representation of defendant, or (2) [where] counsel actually learned particular confidential information during the prior representation of the witness that was relevant to defendant’s later case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[G]enerally, it is more difficult to prove that successive representation caused an actual conflict of interest than that simultaneous representation did so.”
    3 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.