State v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We begin with the premise that newly announced constitutional verities are to be given retroactive application to cases which are still in the trial or appellate process at the time such verities are announced, unless some compelling reason exists for not so doing. Mishkin, Foreword, The Supreme Court, 1964 term, 79 Harvard Law Review 56, 77-78. “ ‘Under our cases it appears (1) that a change in law will be given effect while a case is on direct review, Schooner Peggy [United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103 , 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801) ], supra, and (2) that the effect of the subsequent ruling of invalidity on prior final judgments when collaterally attacked is subject to no set “principle of absolute retroactive invalidity” .. . . ’ Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 627 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1736 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 . “We note that Linkletter is the landmark decision in this particular area of the law. “In some instances new judicial standards have been applied in a ‘wholly prospective manner.’ “ ‘.... We must determine retroactivity “in each case” by looking to the peculiar traits of the specific “rule in question” Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 728 , 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1778 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).’ * * * * * * “As this Court noted in Franklin [Franklin v. State, Tenn., 496 S.W.2d 885 (1973) ], a factor which weighs heavily in favor of retroactive application of a new rule is the likelihood that it will enhance the integrity and reliability of the fact-finding process ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hellard v. State

2. “[A] factor which weighs heavily in favor of retroactive application of a new rule is the likelihood that it will enhance the integrity and reliability of the fact-finding process of the trial. A factor which weighs heavily against retroactive application is the prospect that the integrity of the fact-finding process at trial will not be materially enhanced, coupled with the wholesale unsettling of final judgments of conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adkins v. State