Donnelly v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Jones (1988), Shaw v. State, Department of Administration, Public Defender Agency (1991)
28 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on MacHibroda v. United States · Johnson v. Avery · Marcella v. United States · Hughes v. State · Anderson 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nly the presence of counsel will assure that meritorious claims will be fairly presented and full advantage taken of the procedures”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Belknap v. State · Holden v. State“Post Conviction Procedure — Scope. Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: (1) that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of Alaska; (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; (3) that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law; (4) that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; (5) that his sentence has expired, his probation, parole or conditional release have been unlawfully revoked, or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint; (6) that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground or alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy; or (7) that there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to applicant’s conviction or sentence, when sufficient reasons exist to allow retroactive application of the changed legal standards; may institute a proceeding under this rule to secure relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rust v. State“The present rule is an attempt to resolve the dilemma encountered under the Federal (and pre-1967 Alaska) rule, which was “too inflexible in attempting to dispose of applications for post-conviction relief either on the pleadings, which is ordinarily too early, or after a plenary hearing, which is all too often unnecessary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fajeriak 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.