Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 596 NE2D 908 - Maxey v. State

Maxey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Martin Theatres of Texas, Inc. v. Bullock · Langley v. State · Procup v. Strickland · Ruetz v. State · Schiro v. Indiana

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

  1. “The purpose of the post-conviction relief process is to raise issues not known at the time of the original trial and appeal or for some reason not available to the defendant at that time.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Issues previously decided adversely to a petitioner's position are res judicata and not subject to further examination. It is imperative to an orderly judicial system that, at some point, controversies end. Additionally, in a normal civil action, the claim preclusion branch of res judicata bars the relitigation of both those issues raised and those which should have been raised. Post-conviction actions, of course, are not normal civil actions, but nevertheless a petitioner for post-conviction relief cannot escape the effect of claim preclusion merely by using different language to phrase an issue and define an alleged error.”
    1 later decision 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.