State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 1990
most recently cited
2 district · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Rust · State v. Peery · State v. Costello · State v. Ware · State v. Tipton
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when the trial court admitted the in-court and out-of-court identifications of the petitioner by the various witnesses, given the impermissibly and unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification procedures. 2. Petitioner’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, in failing to raise a proper due process challenge to the identification testimony elicited at the trials. 3. Petitioner’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, in refusing to call petitioner’s brother-in-law as an alibi witness in the trial concerning the robberies at Jack & Mary’s Restaurant. 4. Petitioner’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated when, during the trial of the Gorat’s Steak House robbery, the prosecutor committed misconduct of constitutional proportions by purportedly commenting on a failure to testify on the part of the petitioner. 5. Petitioner’s right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated when the prosecutor— outside the presence of the judge, the petitioner, and his counsel — allegedly communicated with the jury inside the jury room, just prior to the returning of the verdicts in the trial of the Village Inn Pancake House and Gorat's Steak House robberies. 6. Petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Four”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Clarke · State v. Evans““On direct appeal the records in all four cases were examined by this court and found to be free from prejudicial error. Motions to withdraw filed by the defendant’s counsel were sustained and the judgments affirmed on July 8,1981.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Clarke
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.