Alabama v. Davis, 446 U.S. 903 (1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Alabama v. Davis, 446 U.S. 903 (1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1982 · (a)n attorney does not provide effective assistance if he fails to investigate sources of evidence which may be helpful to the defense. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1982 · (i)f a defense attorney were to put on what amounted to no defense at all, we would 'not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted,' hamilton v. alabama, 368 u.s. 52, 55 , 82 s.ct. 157, 159 , 7 l.ed.2d 114 (1961). ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1982 · …f a defense attorney were to put on what amounted to no defense at all, we would 'not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted,' hamilton v. alabama, 368 u.s. 52, 55 , 82 s.ct. 157, 159 , 7 l.ed.2d 114 (1961). ⚠ not in text
177 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 30 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David Leroy Washington v. Charles E. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, and Jim Smith, Attorney General of the State of Florida (ca5, 1982-04-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) David Leroy Washington v. Charles E. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, and Jim Smith, Attorney General of the State of Florida (10×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 8 verbatim quotes · confidence high
(i)f a defense attorney were to put on what amounted to no defense at all, we would 'not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted,' hamilton v. alabama, 368 u.s. 52, 55 , 82 s.ct. 157, 159 , 7 l.ed.2d 114 (1961).
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Horace Lovett, Jr. v. State of Florida
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
where an allegation of ineffective assistance by counsel is premised on specific acts or omissions of counsel, the allegations must be buttressed by a showing of injury or prejudice to the defendant
cited Cited "see" Pointer v. Lee
N.D. Miss. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-696 , 104 S.Ct., at 2067-2069 ; see generally Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-1223 (CAF 1979), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 (1980).
examined Cited "see" Roeur Van v. Kurt Jones, Warden (4×)
6th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S., at 693-696, 104 S.Ct., at 2067-2069 ; see generally Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-1223 (C.A.5 1979), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1332-1333 (C.A.9 1978) (en banc); McQueen v. Swenson, 498 F.2d 207, 219-220 (C.A.8 1974); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see" Van v. Jones
6th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S., at 693-696 , 104 S.Ct., at 2067-2069 ; see generally Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-1223 (CA5 1979), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 (1980); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1332-1333 (CA9 1978) (en banc); McQueen v. Swenson, 498 F.2d 207, 219-220 (CA8 1974); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Cronic
SCOTUS · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strickland v. Washington, post, at 693-696; see generally Davis v. Alabama, 596 F. 2d 1214, 1221-1223 (CA5 1979), vacated as moot, 446 U. S. 903 (1980); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F. 2d 1325, 1332-1333 (CA9 1978) (en banc); McQueen v. Swenson, 498 F. 2d 207, 219-220 (CA8 1974); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see" Mitchell v. Hopper (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-23 (5th Cir. 1979), judgment vacated, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Knight v. State (2×)
Fla. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.1979), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980), on remand 623 F.2d 366 (5th Cir.1980); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1331-32 (9th Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 974 , 99 S.Ct. 1542 , 59 L.Ed.2d 793 (1979); United States v. Cooper, 580 F.2d 259 , 263 n. 8 (7th Cir.1978); Harshaw v. United States, 542 F.2d 455, 456-57 (8th Cir.1976); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see" Herman Everett Beavers v. Charles R. Balkcom, Warden (2×)
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1217 (5th Cir. 1979), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Rummel v. Estelle (2×)
W.D. Tex. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1218 (5th Cir. 1979), judgment vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Robert Lee Brown v. Frank Blackburn, Warden
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Davis v. Alabamba, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-23 (5th Cir. 1979), vacated, *37 - U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980). 4 At the trial Charles Williams, the victim’s fifteen year old neighbor, identified Brown, but not his codefendant, as a perpetrator of the burglary.
cited Cited "see" Fiesel v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
E.D.N.Y · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sala v. County of Suffolk, 604 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1979), vacated on other grounds, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Baynes (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1979) (ineffective assistance where attorneys failed to investigate and develop an insanity defense that they had decided was not very strong), judgment vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980); Wilson v. Cowan, 578 F.2d 166, 168 (6th Cir. 1978) (ineffective assistance where counsel did not call alibi witnesses to testify, despite repeated urgings by Bell v. Georgia, 554 F.2d 1361 (5th Cir. 1977) (ineffective assistance where counsel made no attempt to obtain alibi witnesses, despite defendant's repeated protestat…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Baynes (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1979) (ineffective assistance where attorneys failed to investigate and develop an insanity defense that they had decided was not very strong), judgment vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980); Wilson v. Cowan, 578 F.2d 166, 168 (6th Cir. 1978) (ineffective assistance where counsel did not call alibi witnesses to testify, despite repeated urgings by Bell v. Georgia, 554 F.2d 1361 (5th Cir. 1977) (ineffective assistance where counsel made no attempt to obtain alibi witnesses, despite defendant’s repeated protest…
examined Cited "see, e.g." John Lewis Washington v. John C. Watkins, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections (4×)
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Davis v. Alabama, 596 F.2d 1214, 1221-23 (5th Cir. 1979) (suggesting that “[njot every defendant whose attorney was deficient must show prejudice,” but if so, a defendant “need only show that his attorneys’ errors were not ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,’ ” citing Chapman), vacated as moot, 446 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 1827 , 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980); and United States v. Decoster, 624 F.2d 196, 290-95 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Alabama
v.
James G. Davis
79-711.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 1980.
446 U.S. 903
Stevens.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
5 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (9)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and that court is directed to remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate the order denying the petition fora writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated, and that court is directed to remand the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with instructions to vacate the order denying the petition for[*904] a writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

Dissent

Mr. Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

In United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36, 39, the Court stated that

“[t]he established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.”

But that need not be done in this case, first, because respondent Davis’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed by the District Court on motion by Davis after the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari had been filed. See Supplement to Pet. for Cert. 6. And second, it should be noted that the judgment of the Court of Appeals did not order that Davis be released from custody, but merely held that his attorneys had failed to discharge their duty to their client, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether that failure had prejudiced him. 596 F. 2d 1214, 1223 (CA5 1979). If such a hearing should one day be held in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and should Davis ultimately succeed in getting his conviction vacated, there will still be an opportunity for this Court to review any decision on the merits. In the meantime, it is difficult to see what harm would flow to the State if we were simply to let the judgment of the Court of Appeals stand. There is no realistic possibility that the judgment could “spaw[n] any legal consequences.” United States v. Munsingwear, supra, at 41. Thus, there is no particular justification for this Court’s intervention.

Accordingly, I would simply deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.