Bellamy v. Cogdell’s Empirical Analysis
974 F.2d 302 · 1992
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. Levy (1994), Winkler v. Keane (1993)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain · Teague v. Lane
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“counsel). 27 The per se rule applies when an attorney is implicated in the crimes of his or her client since, in that event, the attorney cannot be free from fear that a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Per se rules are] designed to avoid the costs of excessive inquiry where a per se rule will achieve the correct result in almost all cases. As we explained in a different context: “Per se rules ... require the Court to make broad generalizations _ Cases that do not fit the generalization may arise, but a per se rule reflects the judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them.” [Citation omitted]. Per se rules should not be applied, however, in situations where the generalization is incorrect as an empirical matter; the justification for a conclusive presumption disappears when application of the presumption will not reach the correct result most of the time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) not duly licensed to practice law because of a failure to ever meet the substantive requirements for the practice of law, . . . or (2) implicated in the defendant's crimes.”
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.