558 So. 2d 4 - State v. Glenn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “destroy the stability of the law, render punishments uncertain and therefore ineffectual, and burden the judicial machinery of our state, fiscally and intellectually, beyond any tolerable limit.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnston v. Moore · 916 So. 2d 728 - Chandler v. Crosby

2. “We held that only major constitutional changes of law which constitute a development of fundamental significance are cognizable under a motion for postconviction relief. Most such "jurisprudential upheavals" in the law fall within two broad categories, i.e., decisions ... which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties, and decisions ... which are of such significant magnitude as to necessitate retroactive application as determined by the three-prong test as applied in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 [, 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ] (1967).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meek v. State · 768 So. 2d 510 - Bunkley v. State

3. “Granting collateral relief ... would have a strong impact upon the administration of justice. Courts would be forced to reexamine previously final and fully adjudicated cases. Moreover, courts would be faced in many cases with the problem of making difficult and time-consuming factual determinations based on stale records. We believe that a court's time and energy would be better spent in handling its current case-load....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Callaway · 904 So. 2d 400 - Johnson v. State