Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 SO2D 1168 - King v. State

King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 666 So. 2d 767 - Cole v. State (1995), Woodward v. State (1997)

46 state decisions

230199520002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Cronic · Ake v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “(1) that the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); (2) that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (3) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “About 10:30 a.m. on August 3, 1980 Mrs. Lelia [1] Patterson was found dead in a bathtub in her home. An investigation revealed that the screen on a door had been cut, the telephone wires outside the house had been severed, articles were scattered throughout the house, and dresser drawers had been emptied on the floor. A fingerprint and palmprint were found on two file folders in a box located in the house. The prints matched known fingerprints and palmprints of [King]. [King]'s residence was searched two days later and several items which belonged to Mrs. Patterson were found. [King] was arrested on August 6th and denied that he had been at Mrs. Patterson's house on August 3rd. The officers interviewed [King]'s girlfriend, Barbara Jordan and on the basis of information received from her, [King]'s residence was searched a second time and additional items from Mrs. Patterson's home were found. [King] was questioned after the second search and admitted that he entered the house of Mrs. Patterson on Saturday night, August 2nd, burglarized the house, saw Mrs. Patterson, but did not kill her. In his second statement he said he was accompanied by Willie Porter who remained outside while [King] burglarized the house, that Mrs. Patterson was alive when he left the house, and that Willie Porter entered the house as he was leaving. [King] also said he saw Willie later in the morning of August 3rd and Willie told him that he, Willie, had taken some articles from Mrs. Patterson's house. A”
    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.