Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 382 So. 2d 673 - Meeks v. State

382 So. 2d 673 - Meeks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
2
states following
May 2009
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Knight v. State (1981), Stewart v. State (1982)

1 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

830198019902000decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Washington v. Davis · Gardner v. Florida · Castaneda v. Partida · Parker v. North Carolina

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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is not `sham and mockery,' but whether counsel was reasonably likely to render and did render reasonably effective counsel based on the totality of the circumstances.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Vagner v. Wainwright · Edwards v. State
  2. “Pursuant to a rule 3.850 motion, a prisoner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief. If the prisoner raises a matter that may properly be considered in a rule 3.850 motion, the trial judge reviewing the motion must either attach that portion of the case file or record which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief or grant an evidentiary hearing. (Citations omitted.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Raulerson v. State · 447 So. 2d 442 - Williams v. State
  3. “by virtue of his failure to anticipate future developments in the law,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 389 So. 2d 669 - Blatch v. State · Cox 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.