Robert Cobb v. E.P. Perini’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 342 · 1987
Citation profile
37 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Withrow v. Williams (1993), McQueen v. Scroggy (1996)
37 federal appellate ·
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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.... Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether an attorney's conduct was deficient, the Court stressed that 'the proper standard for attorney performance is that of a reasonably effective assistance' [citation omitted] 'viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct,' and considered 'in light of all the circumstances.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, it is not at all clear that any objection that Cobb’s attorney might have made would have been sustained and the evidence excluded. Cobb does not offer any basis for exclusion of this testimony. Even assuming that it would have been excluded upon objection, it was reasonable for Cobb’s attorney to believe that the evidence was relevant and material, or to have made a strategic decision not to challenge the testimony, thereby focusing undue attention on the matter.”
1 later decision 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.