452 So. 2d 533 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 39 later decisions

states following

October 2012

most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 461 So. 2d 109 - Ruffin v. Wainwright (1984), 453 So. 2d 1102 - Downs v. State (1984)

1 federal appellate · 37 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 Strickland v. Washington · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Knight v. State · United States v. Decoster · 301 So. 2d 7 - State v. Barber

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

“First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Mikenas v. State · 649 So. 2d 255 - Mazard v. State
“[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 469 So. 2d 845 - State v. Stirrup · 507 So. 2d 1122 - Williams v. State
“[T]he designation of the criminal procedure rule [3.850] is a misnomer in that the proceeding is civil in nature, rather than criminal, and is likened to a combination of the common-law writ of habeas corpus and a motion for writ of error coram nobis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 706 So. 2d 873 - Carter v. State · 789 So. 2d 306 - Ferguson 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.