Middleton v. Evatt’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Middleton v. Evatt“an exhaustive review of the record and of the in-depth testimony given by Mr. Kent as to each alleged error”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Middleton v. Evatt“[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Middleton v. Evatt
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.