Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 880 F.2d 941 - Santos v. Kolb

Santos v. Kolb’s Empirical Analysis

880 F.2d 941 · 1989

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
14
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley (1996), C (1992)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 14 states

3901989199020002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · McMann v. Richardson · Tollett v. Henderson · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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

  1. “"[Alctual knowledge of consequences which are collateral to the guilty plea is not a prerequisite to the entry of a knowing and intelligent plea. A deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding which may result from a criminal prosecution, but is not a part of or enmeshed in the criminal proceeding. It is collateral to the criminal prosecution. While the Sixth Amendment assures an accused of effective assistance of counsel in 'criminal prosecutions' this assurance does not extend to collateral aspects of the prosecution."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] specific explanation of why the defendant alleges he would have gone to trial is required.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”
    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.