598 So. 2d 895 - Ex Parte Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Ex Parte Ingram (1996), 716 So. 2d 237 - Arrington v. State (1997)
1 federal appellate · 122 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 · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Alder v. United States · New York v. Ferber · United States v. Stitzer
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[W]e will not make exception to the rule that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel may not be considered on appeal if it was not first presented to the trial court.'”
20 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ewing v. State · Bankston v. State“claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be considered for the first time on direct appeal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Prince v. State · Ex Parte Ingram“A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. ". . . . ". . . The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holland v. State
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.