166 So. 2d 163 - Archer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1988
10 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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Sanders v. United States · King v. State · 151 So. 2d 825 - Roy v. Wainwright · 165 So. 2d 195 - Simpson 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In view of the foregoing principles, we find that the court erred in its denial of the second motion for the reason that 'the motion, files and records, of the case do not conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief, coupled with the fact that the pri- or denial was entered without a hear ing, was based upon the insufficiency ■of the motion and therefore was not a determination on the merits. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. State““ * * * In cases where the second or successive application is shown to be conclusively without merit on the basis of the motion and files and records of the case, such motion should be denied without a hearing. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Piehl
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.