Hendrix v. Palmer’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.3d 906 · 2018
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For such a failure to constitute deficient performance, the meritorious nature of the motion must be so plain that 'no competent attorney would think a motion to suppress would have failed.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“But 'the failure to file a suppression motion does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A petitioner also must show that counsel had no reasonable strategic rationale for not filing the motion.”
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.