Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 So. 2d 987 - Meeks v. State

418 So. 2d 987 - Meeks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2014

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

401982199020002010decided

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 Gardner v. Florida · Parker v. North Carolina · Knight v. State · Meeks v. Florida · 382 So. 2d 673 - Meeks 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “record does not establish any identifiable deficiencies in [Meeks'] trial counsel's voir dire examination; nor [did the court find] his asserted failure to ask for additional peremptory challenges an erroneous omission by counsel necessitating a conclusion of ineffectiveness.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it must be recognized that the methods of jury voir dire are subjective and individualistic.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “reject[ed] the second contention that [Meeks'] trial counsel was deficient by allowing evidence of the codefendant's participation in the crime. It clearly appears that defense counsel attempted to make the codefendant the more dominant participant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.