Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Woods v. State (1998), Willard v. State (1980)
10 federal appellate · 104 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 Ortiz v. State · Combs v. State · Logal v. Cruse · Bright v. State · Schmidt 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We hold that where an appellant from a criminal conviction seeks to bring a petition for post-conviction relief pending resolution of his appeal, he may obtain leave from the appellate court under the procedure outlined in Logal when the appellate court can find: (1) that the grounds for relief advanced in appellant’s petition have a substantial likelihood of securing appellant relief in the trial court; (2) that such relief has a substantial likelihood of rendering moot the issues raised on direct appeal and would effect a net savings of judicial time and effort; (3) that the circumstances of the case are such that undue hardship would result to appellant were he required to await completion of his appeal to petition for post-conviction relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ “[Wjhere there [have] been two separate judicial determinations on the merits of the respective cases, and where they are contradictory, the law will impose a consistency to their findings.” Combs v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 294 , [301,] 295 N.E.2d 366 , [370].’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jewell v. State · Clark v. State“[It] involves a termination or suspension of a direct appeal already initiated, upon appellate counsel’s motion for remand or stay, to allow a post-conviction relief petition to be pursued in the trial court.... If the appellate court preliminarily determines that the motion has sufficient merit, the entire case is remanded for consideration of the petition for post-conviction relief.... If, after a full evidentiary hearing the post-conviction relief petition is denied, the appeal can be reinitiated.... Thus, in addition to the issues initially raised in the direct appeal, the issues litigated in the post-conviction relief proceeding can also be raised. ... This way, a full hearing and record on the issue will be included in the appeal....”
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.