Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 F.2d 497 - Horne v. Trickey

Horne v. Trickey’s Empirical Analysis

895 F.2d 497 · 1990

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Mayo v. Henderson (1994), Jackson v. Herring (1995)

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

3501990200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Griffin v. California · Swain v. State of Alabama · Smith v. Murray

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

  1. “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from the counsel's perspective at the time.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Fretwell "). Counsel is not required to forecast changes in the governing law. See, e.g., Horne v. Trickey, 895 F.2d 497 , 500 (8th Cir.1990) (ineffectiveness not established by claim that "counsel should have realized that the Supreme Court was planning a significant change in the existing law, and that the failure to anticipate this change rises to the level of constitutional ineffectiveness”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The state did not call attention to Home’s failure to testify, but rather to the fact that the statement was extra-judicial and not credible, and therefore should be given less weight than the in-court testimony of the victim of the crime.”
    1 later decision 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.