Reese v. Fulcomer’s Empirical Analysis
946 F.2d 247 · 1991
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 20 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 127 Ohio App. 3d 511 - State v. Thompson (1998), 120 Ohio App. 3d 320 - State v. Wills (1997)
27 federal appellate · 20 district · 12 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Townsend v. Sain
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the underlying facts about counsel's performance are entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), if fairly supported by the record.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The principles governing ineffectiveness claims should apply in federal collateral proceedings as they do on direct appeal or in motions for a new trial. As indicated by the “cause and prejudice” test for overcoming procedural waivers of claims of error, the presumption that a criminal judgment is final is at its strongest in collateral attacks on that judgment. An ineffectiveness claim, however, as our articulation of the standards that govern decision of such claims makes clear, is an attack on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is challenged. Since fundamental fairness is the central concern of the writ of habeas corpus no special standards ought to apply to ineffec tiveness claims made in habeas proceedings. Finally, in 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 fact”. Rather, like the question whether multiple representation in a particular case gave rise to a conflict of interest, 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 perform”
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.