Uresti v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1099 · 1987
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Williams v. Chrans (1991), United States v. Cothran (2002)
22 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Sumner v. Mata · Marshall v. Lonberger · Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byrne v. Butler · Sawyer v. Butler“state court's hearing by affidavit was sufficient to invoke the presumption [of correctness].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Buxton v. Lynaugh · May v. Collins“We have here an attorney who on the record is acting in good faith and affording sound representation when he decides that a client should plead guilty under a plea bargain. The client indicates doubt. Without question, the attorney has the right to ask the court to allow him to withdraw as counsel and have another counsel appointed if the client refuses to plead. He has given his best advice. He thinks the insistence of his client that the case go to trial is foolhardy. He has done what he can, and he wants to ask to be relieved so that another attorney more sympathetic to trial be appointed in his stead. Having that right, whether or not the court in its discretion would grant the request, it would be improper and unethical not to warn his client that this was the course of conduct he would follow if the client refused to accept the plea bargain. Withholding this information would withhold a material and significant fact from the accused when the accused was undertaking to decide whether or not to accept the plea bargain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hollon v. State
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.