Grado, Michael Anthony’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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

1. “characterized Marin as holding 'that the general preservation requirement's application turns on the nature of the right allegedly infringed,' as opposed to 'the circumstances under which it was raised.' That is, a proper determination of a claim's availability on appeal should not involve peering behind the procedural-default curtain to look at the particular 'circumstances' of the claim within the case at hand.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joyner v. State · Proenza, Abraham Jacob

2. “[a] contrary conclusion has the potential of shaking the public's perception of the fairness of our judicial system and breeding suspicion of the fairness and accuracy of judicial proceedings. The nature of this right is too significant to the judicial system to conclude that it is extinguished by mere inaction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Proenza, Abraham Jacob · Ex parte Pue

3. “• The first category of rights are those that are “widely considered so fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process ... that they cannot be forfeited ... by inaction alone.” These are considered “absolute rights.” • The second category of rights is comprised of rights that are “not forfei-table”—they cannot be surrendered by mere inaction, but are “waivable” if the waiver is affirmatively, plainly, freely, and intelligently made. The trial judge has an independent duty to implement these rights absent any request unless there is an effective express waiver. • Finally, the third category of rights are “forfeitable” and must be requested by the litigant. Many rights of the criminal defendant, including some constitutional rights, are in this category and can be forfeited by inaction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Metts v. State