Jones v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
947 F.2d 1106 · 1991
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Hall (1998), Archuleta v. Galetka (2011)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“55 The essence of the argument is that the district court considered Bailey's various requests one at a time instead of all together, not that the necessary services were not provided. The series of motions is referred to in the statement of facts in the early part of this opinion. The rule in this circuit is that 56 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) the district court may grant requests for expert services other than counsel upon a finding that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f we accepted petitioner's argument [that we should adopt] a binding rule of conduct [for defense counsel] in all cases, we would run afoul of the Supreme Court's explicit warning that '[n]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel . . . .'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wle conclude that counsel's decision, based upon the advice of these psychologists that his client suffered from no mitigating psychiatric conditions at the time of his crimes, not to devote additional time and effort to further evaluation was within the range of reasonable professional judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Archuleta v. Galetka
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.