Flowers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Barks v. Armontrout (1989), Flowers v. State (1982)
4 federal appellate · 18 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · United States v. MacCollom · Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Successive Motions. The sentencing court shall not entertain a second or successive motion for relief on behalf of the prisoner where the ground presented in the subsequent application was raised and determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application or where the ground presented is new but could have been raised in the prior motion pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of this Rule. The burden shall be on the prisoner to establish that any new ground raised in a second motion could not have been raised by him in the prior motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. State“police beatings, refusal to allow a telephone call or access to doctor or lawyer, and failure of appointed counsel to consult with him prior to trial.” The Supreme Court of Missouri held that because”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State“defendant under sentence for a felony who claims the judgment and sentence imposed after trial violate the Constitution and Laws of this State”
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.