565 So. 2d 147 - Ex Parte Stringfellow’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2018
1 federal appellate · 6 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 · White v. State · 520 So. 2d 244 - Stringfellow 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n attorney who is appointed after a defendant has filed a pro se petition should be allowed to amend the petition prior to the hearing if a legitimate issue arises that differs in substance from the allegations made by the defendant in the original petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Whitehead v. State · Riley v. State“We believe that that portion of [Rule] 20.7(d) stating that '[l]eave to amend shall be freely granted' should be accorded particular significance [in pro se proceedings]. By allowing the defendant the ability to freely amend the petition, we protect the unknowledgeable defendant who files a pro se petition....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Toles v. Jones“[l]eave to amend [should] be freely granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Toles v. Jones
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.