14 So. 3d 985 - Marek v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
33 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chambers v. Mississippi · Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. · Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard · Jones v. State
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n determining whether the evidence compels a new trial, the postconviction court must “consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible” and must “evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at the trial.” [Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla.1991) (Jones I) ]. This determination includes whether the evidence goes to the merits of the case or whether it constitutes impeachment evidence. The trial court should also determine whether this evidence is cumulative to other evidence in the case. The trial court should further consider the materiality and relevance of the evidence and any inconsistencies in the newly discovered evidence. Jones II, 709 So.2d at 521 (citations omitted).”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven if a Huff hearing had been required in [ Groover ], the court's failure to do so would be harmless as no evidentiary hearing was required and relief was not warranted on the motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he failure to hold a hearing on a successive postconviction motion that is legally insufficient on its face is harmless error”
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.