Rhoades v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.3d 422 · 2017
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (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 · Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“below an objective standard of reasonableness as measured by prevailing professional norms”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Davis · Murphy v. Davis“[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis · Mejia v. Stephens“'strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengable.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mejia v. Davis · Mejia v. Stephens
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.