679 So. 2d 208 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2015
19 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 · Raymond L. Buckelew and James Laney Jenkins v. United States of America, Judson Lee Drane v. United States · 440 So. 2d 278 - Sanders v. State · 462 So. 2d 710 - Gilliard v. State · Culberson v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for a contested fact to require an evidentiary hearing it must be material. Moreover, where an affidavit is belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statement to the affiant to the contrary, to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham, no hearing is required.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Crouch v. State · Taylor v. State“[d]ecisions regarding which witnesses to call are peculiarly within the gambit of trial strategy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“There should be a strong presumption of validity of anyone's statement under oath. However, we are now faced with one statement or the other not being the truth ... "Where the petitioner's version is belied by previous sworn testimony, for example, as to render his affidavit a sham we will allow summary judgment to stand." If ever there was a sham, it is clearly within these allegations through which Mowdy and Scrivner attempt to get this Court to order an evidentiary hearing to set aside validly imposed sentences based upon what they both now claim were involuntary pleas.”
2 later decisions 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.