Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 961 F.2d 113 - Lawrence v. Armontrout

Lawrence v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis

961 F.2d 113 · 1992

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2018

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

150199220002010decided

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)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Laws v. Armontrout, Warden · Baxter v. Federal Communications Commission · Laws v. Armontrout · Lawrence v. Armontrout

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

  1. “trial counsel's performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonable competence, and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “requires proof 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for a counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the preceding would have been different.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is Lawrence's burden to affirmatively prove that there is a reasonable probability that, had his trial counsel interviewed and called the alibi witnesses, he would have been acquitted.”
    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.