Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 960 SW2D 572 - Henley v. State

Henley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Burns (1999), Fields v. State (2001)

3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

270199720002010decided

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 · Lockett v. Ohio · Pointer v. Texas · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Burger v. Kemp

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

  1. ““A court must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. Some of the factual findings will have been unaffected by the errors, and factual findings that were affected will have been affected in different ways. Some errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire evidentiary picture, and some will have had an isolated, trivial effect....””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[G]iven that counsel admitted in the post-conviction hearing that the defense theory at trial was that Ms. Davis killed the victim, trial counsel’s failure to subpoena and utilize an available Ms. Davis at trial or, alternatively, to establish that she was unavailable to testify at trial, strongly suggests that counsel’s performance was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.... Lead trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that he did not call Ms. Davis as a witness at trial because he was out-voted by co-counsel and [Petitioner]. I would reject outright this explanation as a basis for an informed tactical and strategic decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.