Flamer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Dawson v. State (1996), Sullivan v. State (1994)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 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 · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Hill v. Lockhart · Edwards v. Arizona · Teague v. Lane
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. State · Pierce v. State“(4) Former Adjudication. Any ground for relief that was formerly adjudicated, whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a postconviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, is thereafter barred, unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“practice said to be utilized during rebuttal by Kent County prosecutors, such a waiver was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. 101 Id. at 754-55. 102 Flamer argues that the state court's finding is not fairly supported by the record and that Reardon's testimony at the post-conviction hearing was concocted to justify”
2 later decisions 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.