State v. Slemmer’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably State v. Smith (1996), State v. Youngblood (1993)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 49 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Teague v. Lane · Rose v. Lundy · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]iversity [in the rules governing retroactivity] would be mischievous and a disservice to principles of federalism. The law regarding retroactivity is complex enough without requiring counsel and trial judges to apply different retroactivity rules, depending on whether the substantive decision is grounded on state or federal constitutional principles especially when many decisions are grounded on both.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When a new principle of law is articulated, a defendant whose conviction has become final may seek relief under Rule 32. That defendant is insulated from the rules of finality and preclusion when, as the rule contemplates, there “has been a significant change in the law applied in the process which led” to conviction or sentence. Whether relief may be obtained under Rule 32 then depends on the question of retroactive application of the new principle of law. That question is to be determined by the standards contained in this opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Hunter does not mention any constitutional provision and is remarkable for its silence on the question of whether the fundamental error had its origins in the constitution____ However, Hunter does not involve the state’s due process obligation to prove the elements of the crime but, rather, the burden-shifting of the state’s obligation to prove the absence of justification for defendant’s actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Casey
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.