Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 865 F.2d 59 - Government of the Virgin Islands v. Forte

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Forte’s Empirical Analysis

865 F.2d 59 · 1989

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
10
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 18 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Day (1992), Lucas v. O'Dea (1999)

51 federal appellate · 18 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states

70019891990200020102020decided

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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Griffith v. Kentucky · Vandygriff v. Phillips

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

  1. “'show conclusively that the movant is not entitled to relief.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nly in a rare case can an attorney's performance be considered unreasonable under prevailing professional standards when she does not make an [argument] which could not be sustained on the basis of the existing law as there is no general duty on the part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Defendants of both groups [white and black] are entitled to trial before juries for which members of their race are not excluded as the result of purposeful discrimination by the prosecutor. We cannot hold that a white defendant convicted by a jury selected in a racially discriminatory manner should be satisfied with the knowledge that it is usually blacks who are unfairly treated and therefore may be denied relief himself.... Thus, we now hold... that Batson applied to both white and blacks....”
    3 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.