Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 969 F.2d 1006 - Hamilton v. Ford

Hamilton v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

969 F.2d 1006 · 1992

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
7
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Scarpa v. Dubois (1994), United States v. Levy (1994)

14 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

310199220002010decided

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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Carnegie v. United States · Holloway v. Arkansas · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “In reviewing a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, we presume that factual findings made by a state court are correct. We review factual conclusions made by the district court under the clearly erroneous standard. We review mixed questions of fact and law de novo.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hen defendants make timely objections to joint representation, they need not show an actual conflict of interest when a trial court fails to inquire adequately into the basis of the objection. In such circumstances the trial court has failed to discharge its constitutional duty under Holloway to determine whether the defendants are receiving adequate assistance of counsel ... [and] [r]eversal is automatic."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.”
    2 later decisions 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.