Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Roberts v. State (2013), Mancia v. State (2015)
7 federal appellate · 39 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Vrettos v. Plainfield Post Office · Larimore v. State · Lee v. State · Robbins v. State · Echols 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• belligerent attitude towards the prosecuting attorney; • being unable to locate the witness room; • repeatedly being unable to understand questions posed by the trial court or objections raised by the prosecution; • not being familiar with his own witnesses; | s* not properly serving witnesses or telling them not to attend the hearings, only to call them during the hearing; • routinely forgetting basic rules of procedure regarding the admission of evidence; • failing to prepare for the hearing by organizing evidentiary items or meeting with witnesses; • rambling incoherently, repeatedly interjecting “blah, blah, blah” into his statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Isom v. State“In Robbins, we recognized that “this court will recall a mandate and reopen a case in extraordinary circumstances.” Id. at 564, 114 S.W.3d at 222. However, in deciding to recall the mandate, we specifically explained that our decision was based on three factors: 1) the presence of a defect in the appellate process; ■ 2) a dismissal of proceedings in federal court because of unexhausted state court claims; and 3) the appeal was a death case that required heightened scrutiny. Thus, these three criteria must be satisfied in order for this court to consider the relief requested by Lee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Isom v. State“By this act, Congress chose to restrict federal habeas corpus review in exchange for the states[] appointing competent counsel for indigent capital defendants for purposes of state postconviction review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson 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.