Sistrunk v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis
96 F.3d 666 · 1996
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Werts v. Vaughn (2000), Mapes v. Coyle (1999)
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Swain v. State of Alabama
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in making litigation decisions, there is no general duty on the part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [previously litigated doctrine] foreelose[s] state review in a PCRA proceeding of claims that have been fully litigated and rejected on direct appeal [as well as claims which were not presented on direct appeal]. While such claims and claims like Sistrunk’s are both categorized by the statute as “previously litigated,” the two categories are distinct for purposes of the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.... Unlike here, in a situation where a claim has been “previously litigated” and collateral review is barred by § 9544(a)(3) — because the claim has been fully litigated and rejected on direct review — the petitioner will have exhausted state remedies and the state appellate courts will have had the required opportunity to address the federal claim. Nothing here said is intended to address whether federal habeas review would be available with respect to claims fully litigated on direct review in such a case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Boyd v. Warden · Boyd v. Waymart“[C]ertain litigation decisions are considered `fundamental' and are for the client to make. These include decisions on whether to plead guilty, whether to testify, and whether to take an appeal.”
2 later decisions 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.