Johnston v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.3d 52 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where an ineffectiveness claim is based on counsel's decision not to file a suppression motion, the petitioner must demonstrate that a meritorious claim formed the basis of the proposed motion in order to establish deficient performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For such a failure to constitute deficient performance, the meritorious nature of the motion must be so plain that 'no competent attorney would think a motion to suppress would have failed.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a petitioner alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence, we require him to 'prove the motion was meritorious.'”
1 later decision 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.