Stuart v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Charboneau v. State (2004), State v. Rhoades (1991)
32 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · McMann v. Richardson · United States v. Cronic · Nardone v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Idaho Code § 19-4908 requires that all legal and factual grounds for relief must be raised in the first petition for post-conviction relief. Any grounds for relief not raised are permanently waived if the grounds were known or should have been known at the time of the first petition. Subsequent petitions are allowed if the [applicant] states a sufficient reason for not asserting the grounds in the earlier petition. Hence, there is no absolute pro hibition against successive petitions for relief. Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591 , 635 P.2d 955 (1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hooper v. State“Essentially, the task of this Court 'is to determine whether the appellant has alleged facts in his petition that if true, would entitle him to relief.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thumm v. State“[a]n attorney-client relationship can be established when the attorney is sought for assistance in matters pertinent to his profession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wick v. Eismann
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.