Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 SO2D 175 - State v. Messiah

State v. Messiah’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), 637 So. 2d 1012 - State v. Davis (1994)

31 state decisions

2601988199020002010decided

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 · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Witherspoon v. Illinois · McMann v. Richardson

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

  1. “(a) defendant fails to petition the United States Supreme Court timely for certiorari; (b) that court denies his petition for certiorari; (c) having filed for and been denied certiorari, defendant fails to petition the United States Supreme Court timely under their prevailing Rules for rehearing of denial of certiorari; or (d) that court denies his application for rehearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Entirely satisfactory representation may include a brief closing argument intended to focus the jury's attention on a single item of strategy which counsel deems most likely to achieve a favorable verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.”
    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.