Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 F.2d 399 - Smith v. Jago

Smith v. Jago’s Empirical Analysis

888 F.2d 399 · 1989

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
April 2016
most recently cited

30 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably McQueen v. Scroggy (1996), Levine v. Torvik (1993)

30 federal appellate ·

2901989199020002010decided

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)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Wainwright v. Sykes · Sumner v. Mata · Evitts v. Lucey

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

  1. “[I]n a federal habeas challenge to a state criminal judgment, a state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Ineffectiveness is not a question of “basic, primary, or historical fac[t.]” Rather, ... it is a mixed question of law and fact. Although state court findings of fact made in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim are subject to the deference requirement of § 2254(d), and although district court findings are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), both the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.”
    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.