Frazier v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Brandon v. State (1976), Murphy v. State (1976)
81 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 Langley v. State · Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser · Haas v. Holder, Trustee · State Ex Rel. Harris, Etc. v. MUTSCHLER
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" TLaches] is the neglect for an unreasonable length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. It is an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them, the neglect to assert a right, as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to the other party and thus operating as a bar in a court of equity.'"”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. State · Morrison v. State“[WJhere the defense of waiver is raised, a petitioner must then present some substantial basis or circumstance which would satisfactorily mitigate his failure to pursue or perfect a remedy through the normal channels.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boykins v. State · Gregory v. State“"Under our Post Conviction Rule 1, the trial judge has a right to proceed summarily when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations of fact and any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact. PC Rule 1, § 4(f). This provision, dispenses with the necessity of an evidentiary hearing when the issues are of law only. It does not, however, dispense with the need for such a hearing when the determination hinges, in whole or in part, upon facts not resolved. This is true even though the likelihood of the petitioner's producing evidence sufficient to establish his claim appears to be quite remote."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sherwood v. State
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.