Aice v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Matthews v. Evatt (1997), Al-Shabazz v. State (2000)
8 federal appellate · 37 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 Pennsylvania v. Finley · Case v. State · Gamble v. State · Carter v. State · Land 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this chapter must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised ... may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended application.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Aice, 409 S.E.2d at 394. As the South Carolina Supreme Court has explained: 34 Finality must be realized at some point in order to achieve a semblance of effectiveness in dispensing justice. At some juncture judicial review must stop, with only the very rarest of exceptions, when the system has simply failed a defendant and where to continue the defendant's imprisonment without review would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. 35 Id. (citing Butler, 397 S.E.2d at 87). Therefore,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Washington v. State · No. 98-6577“[T]he contention that prior PCR counsel was ineffective is not per se a 'sufficient reason' allowing for a successive application under § 17-27-90”
3 later decisions 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.