Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 887 SW2D 588 - Reuscher v. State

Reuscher v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Moss v. State (2000), Helmig v. State (2001)

4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

300199420002010decided

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

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Herrera v. Collins · Yagow v. United States · Nicholas 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘[SJtrong grounds must exist showing that counsel failed to assert a claim of error which would have required reversal had it been asserted and which was so obvious from the record that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized it and asserted it. The right to relief ... inevitably tracks the plain error rule; i.e., the error that was not raised on appeal was so substantial as to amount to a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.’ ””
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]o support a Rule 29.15 motion due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, strong ground must exist showing that counsel failed to assert a claim of error which would have required reversal had it been asserted and which was so obvious from the record that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized it and asserted it. The right to relief due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel inevitably tracks the plain error rule, i.e., the error that was not raised on appeal was so substantial as to amount to a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.