Carter v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 1198 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably West v. Johnson (1996), Woods v. Johnson (1996)
14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Thomas v. Arn · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Sumner v. Mata
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the ultimate question of whether or not counsel's performance was deficient is a mixed question of law and fact, state court findings made in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim are subject to the deference requirement of section 2254(d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Drew v. Collins“particularly the second (future dangerousness) issue 47 Moreover, we disagree with West's claims that the state habeas court's findings were not entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The fact that a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. West v. Johnson“state court may evaluate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by making credibility determinations based on affidavits submitted by the petitioner and the attorney.”
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.