Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 832 F.2d 837 - Perry v. Leeke

Perry v. Leeke’s Empirical Analysis

832 F.2d 837 · 1987

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2009

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

80198719902000decided

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

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · McMann v. Richardson

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

  1. “[f]ew categories of constitutional error so undermine the adversary system as to warrant reversal without any proof of prejudice in a particular case. Denial of the assistance of counsel during a critical stage of criminal proceedings is one such category of error. Whether the deprivation of counsel spans an entire trial or but a fraction thereof, it renders suspect any result that is obtained.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Even if an effective retrial is possible, it imposes enormous costs on courts and prosecutors, who must commit already scarce resources ‘to repeat a trial that has already once taken place.’ It imposes costs on victims who must ‘relive their disturbing experiences.’ While ‘prejudicial error’ would require a retrial regardless of the inconvenience, those who participated in the initial proceedings should not be compelled to confront these dreadful events a second time if the first trial has been fair. Retrials, moreover, may lack the reliability of the initial trial where witness testimony was unrehearsed and witness recollections were more immediate.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We believe that the per se reversal rule of those cases ( Allen and Stubbs ) cannot be squared with the analysis of Strickland and Cronic , and must be replaced with an inquiry into prejudice.”
    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.