Mak v. Blodgett’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 614 · 1992
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 127 Wash. 2d 322 - State v. McFarland (1995), State v. Pirtle (1995)
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not need to decide whether these deficiencies alone meet the prejudice standard because other significant errors occurred that, considered cumulatively, compel affirmance of the district court's grant of habeas corpus as to the sentence of death.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a defendant challenges a death sentence ... the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”
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.