Calene v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Woods v. State (1998), Gleason v. State (2002)
5 federal appellate · 34 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Penson v. Ohio
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.
“[Where] contentions of ineffectiveness are first developed by appellate counsel during record examination and appellate briefing preparation, a motion for remand should be made and appropriately supported by contentions defining and supporting any ineffectiveness claim in detail and supported, as may be appropriate, by affidavit sufficient to establish substantially.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Eaton v. Pacheco · Cureton v. State“Following a hearing, the trial court will provide a specific decision addressing separate contentions by examination and resolution of the validity of any trial court ineffectiveness of counsel contentions. Appellate briefing can then include ineffectiveness of counsel hearing transcripts and decision conjunctively with any appeal discussion considering other issues presented as claimed error in the initial trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hornecker v. State“[I]t is necessary for serious and specific allegations of ineffectiveness to be sufficiently stated and documented to show a real issue before the trial court can be put to the additional requirement of providing an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barkell v. Crouse
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.