State v. Larimore’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 317 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 321 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Howard v. State (2012), Green v. State (2016)
2 federal appellate · 317 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Penn v. State · Pitts v. State · Troglin 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 321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if it had been kno wn to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment; (2) Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. The court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition; (3) Due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied; and (4) The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court, in Strickler, . . . outlined three elements of a true Brady violation. These components include: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed , by the State, either wilfully or inadvertendy; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Perroni v. State · Smith v. State“`The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanusi v. Gonzales
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.