541 So. 2d 1125 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Sochor v. Florida (1992), 734 So. 2d 1009 - Teffeteller v. Dugger (1999)
1 federal appellate · 33 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Lockett v. Ohio · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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.
“We do not agree with the trial court's ruling that our denial of [Hall's habeas petition] constitutes a procedural bar under the law of the case and res judicata. This case involves significant additional non-record facts which were not considered in [Hall's habeas petition].... In this case, however, we are aided by the trial court's findings of fact at the rule 3.850 hearing. Moreover, as we have stated on several occasions, Hitchcock is a significant change in law, permitting defendants to raise a claim under that case in postconviction proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, when this opinion is filed, inmates under pending death warrants have filed habeas corpus petitions seeking relief under Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 , 107 S.Ct. 1821 , 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), we will consider those petitions. All Hitchcock claims raised after this opinion is filed, however, must be presented in a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief filed with the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is of no significance that the trial judge stated that he would have imposed the death penalty in any event. The proper standard is whether a jury recommending life imprisonment would have a reasonable basis for that recommendation. If so, the trial judge could not override the jury's recommendation....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.