584 So. 2d 786 - Grubb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 863 So. 2d 836 - Byrom v. State (2003), Sones v. Hargett (1995)
2 federal appellate · 88 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 455 So. 2d 727 - Wilcher v. State · 445 So. 2d 815 - House v. State · 582 So. 2d 428 - Luckett v. State · 554 So. 2d 313 - Trotter v. State · Smith 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“affects substantial rights of the defendants.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“§ 99-39-27. Application to supreme court for leave to proceed in trial court; grant of relief; dismissal or denial as res judicata. (1) The application for leave to proceed in the trial court filed with the supreme court under section 99-39-7 shall name the state of Mississippi as the respondent. * * * * * * (9) The dismissal or denial of an application under this section is a final judgment and shall be a bar to a second or successive application under this chapter. Excepted from this prohibition is an application filed pursuant to section 99-19-57(2), Mississippi Code of 1972, raising the issue of the convict's supervening insanity prior to the execution of a sentence of death. A dismissal or denial of an application relating to insanity under section 99-19-57(2), Mississippi Code of 1972, shall be res judicata on the issue and shall likewise bar any second or successive applications on the issue. Likewise excepted from this prohibition are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an intervening decision of the supreme court of either the state of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise exempted are those c”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(3) Statement of Issues. A statement shall identify the issues presented for review. No separate assignment of errors shall be filed. Each issue presented for review shall be separately numbered in the statement. No issue not distinctly identified shall be argued by counsel, except upon request of the court, but the court may, at its option, notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified.”
2 later decisions 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.