Powers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (Innocence Protection Act of 2004) · 42 U.S.C. § 14131 (§ 210303 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14135 · 42 U.S.C. § 14135A
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Jones v. Murray · Owens v. State · United States v. Sczubelek
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his proposition does not mean that an ambiguity exists merely because the parties proffer different interpretations of a statute. A party cannot create an ambiguity by presenting a nonsensical or clearly erroneous interpretation of a statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“trial court should postulate whatever realistically possible test results would be most favorable to the defendant in determining whether he has established the reasonable probability requirement”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Y-STR testing permits DNA analysis on the Y-chromosome. Since the Y-chromosome is inherited paternally, all men in the same paternal lineage should have the same Y-chromosome STRs, or 'Y¥-STRs.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Maestas
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.