Mellinger v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2008
13 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 Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · Miller v. Florida · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · State v. Coleman
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application may be filed at any time within five (5) years from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of an appeal or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. LaFon v. State · Housley v. State“[I]f a prisoner filed a timely application but it was dismissed due to ineffective assistance of counsel ... the prisoner would be entitled to file a subsequent application asserting his grounds for relief more fully even though the ... period of limitation ... had elapsed in the meantime. To hold otherwise would leave the prisoner with no alternative than to sue the attorney for malpractice — a distasteful and onerous undertaking — or to seek a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court, producing the very kind of outside interference in state judicial processes that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act was intended to avoid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hernandez v. State“[E]ven if a law operates to the defendant’s detriment, the ex post facto prohibition does not restrict “legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance.” (citation omitted). Hence no ex post facto violation occurs if the change in the law is merely procedural and does “not increase the punishment, nor change the ingredients of the offense or the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt.” (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Esquivel v. State
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.