Hill v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis
877 F.2d 698 · 1989
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Holloway v. United States (1992), Williams v. State (1992)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · McMann v. Richardson · Sanders v. United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an integral factor in plea negotiations; it is a direct, not a collateral, consequence of the sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Not only had Hill explicitly asked his counsel about the parole system in Arkansas, but he had made clear that the time of eligibility was the dispositive issue for him in accepting or rejecting a plea bargain. He told his attorney that he considered it no bargain to forego a trial unless his eligibility would be sooner than seven years, which he understood to be the time he could serve with commutation of a life sentence.... Given the attorney’s knowledge of his client’s particular concern, a failure to check the applicable law was especially incompatible with the objective standard of reasonable representation in Strickland.... [H]ere, the misadvice was of a solid nature, direcdy affecting Hill’s decision to plead guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Buchheit v. State“earliest potential parole eligibility date . . . [is] normally one of the most important factors to a criminal client.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.