Rivera v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.3d 7 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 · Rhode Island v. Innis · Stansbury v. California · Harrington v. Richter
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“given the facts known at the time, counsel's choice was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evaluating the attorney's conduct 'from counsel's perspective at the time' and in light of 'prevailing professional norms.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must show both that his 'counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' (the performance prong), and that 'there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different' (the prejudice prong).”
2 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.