371 So. 2d 482 - Hallman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Jones v. State (1991), Jones v. State (1998)
1 federal appellate · 126 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 Lockett v. Ohio · United State v. Morgan · Gardner v. Florida · Shapiro v. Thompson · Pulliam v. Georgia
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence.”
35 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Roberts v. State · Antone v. State“would probably have changed the verdict or finding of the court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Historically ... the writ of [error] coram nobis applie[d] to situations in which the petitioner [was] held after judgment and sentence by due process of law, and the claim [was] not that [the] petitioner [was] unlawfully detained but that an error [had] occurred in the process and judgment. The grounds upon which a court [could] issue a writ of error coram nobis [were] more narrowly restricted than those which allow[ed] relief by habeas corpus. . . . . [W]hile ... coram nobis [is] still used in the postconviction process, [its] use is somewhat limited. . . . . A petition for a writ of error coram nobis is [now] filed to bring to the attention of a court facts that, if known at the time judgment was rendered, would have prevented rendition of the judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.