618 So. 2d 58 - Irving v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Teague v. Lane · Rose v. Lundy · Griffith v. Kentucky · Linkletter v. Walker
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clearly, the firmly established judicial concern for finality evidenced in such doctrines as res judicata is not to be lightly discounted. Especially in cases such as this where all factual issues have been established and re-established by way of multiple submissions to juries. I would deny Irving's duplicative petition for post-conviction relief. We as a Court have the power and the duty to bring this case to an end at this point by denying Irving's petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.