Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Eizember v. State (2007), Pavatt v. State (2007)
2 federal appellate · 23 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Kyles v. Whitley
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specific and readily understood concept of which the jury should be informed”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Eizember v. State · Watts v. State“jurors are likely to assume that defendants would become parole eligible at a much earlier point in time,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ball v. State · Carter v. State“A person convicted of Burglary in the First Degree, shall be required to serve not less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the sentence imposed before becoming eligible for consideration for parole and shall not be eligible for any credits that will reduce the length of imprisonment to less than eighty-five [sic] (85%) of the sentence imposed. If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment the calculation of eligibility for parole is based upon a term of forty-five (45) years, so that a person would be eligible for parole after thirty-eight (38) years and three (3) months.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.