Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 846 F.2d 1103 - United States v. Olson

United States v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

846 F.2d 1103 · 1988

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Mealy (1988), United States v. Balzano (1990)

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

45019881990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Castaneda v. Partida · Russell v. United States

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

  1. “ ‘accomplish little other than the waste of judicial resources, and possibly reflect unfairly on trial counsel.’ ”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[w]e know of no case establishing a minimum number of meetings between counsel and client prior to trial necessary to prepare an attorney to provide effective assistance of counsel.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'affirmatively prove prejudice' resulting from his counsel's failure to have more frequent contact with him prior to trial.”
    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.