Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 SO2D 165 - Francois v. Klein

Francois v. Klein’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2022

10 state decisions

6019831990200020102020decided

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 Knight v. State · Gernat v. Gernat · 382 So. 2d 673 - Meeks v. State · 400 So. 2d 956 - Smith v. State · Francois 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. “In Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981), we recognized that allegations of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel are not cognizable under a Rule 3.850 motion because they do not relate to anything done by or transpiring before the trial court. Such allegations, we held, should be addressed to the appellate court by means of a petition for habeas corpus. On the other hand, allegations of ineffectiveness of legal counsel at one's trial are properly presented to the trial court by a Rule 3.850 motion. Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673 (Fla.1980). Since the two judicial attacks on petitioner's convictions and sentences ... were thus separate and distinct, there was no danger ... of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts on the same issues....We do not perceive so substantial a problem of confusion as to require us to hold that the pendency of one kind of proceeding deprives the other court of jurisdiction to proceed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.