Hill v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 1009 · 1990
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably United States v. Arvanitis (1990), Pratt v. United States (1997)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Hill v. Lockhart · Strader v. Garrison · Hill v. Al Lockhart
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not only had Hill explicidy asked his counsel about the parole system in Arkansas, but he had made clear that the timing of eligibility was the dispositive issue for him in accepting or rejecting a plea bargain. He told his attorney that he considered it no bargain to forego a trial unless his eligibility would be sooner than seven years, which he understood to be the time he could serve wdth commutation of a life sentence .... Given the attorney’s knowledge of his client’s particular concern, a failure to check the applicable law was especially incompatible with the objective standard of reasonable representation in Strickland .... [H]ere the misadvice was of a solid nature, directly affecting Hill’s decision to plead guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Propst v. State · Buchheit v. State“erroneous advice concerning parole eligibility may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ... [if] petitioner pleaded guilty as a direct consequence of his counsel's erroneous advice and ... but for this advice, the outcome of the plea process would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the majority’s] holding foregoes objective analysis of [the defendant’s] options at the time of his plea bargaining in favor of slippery subjectivity,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.