Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 687 SW2D 762 - King v. State

King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Lyon v. State (1994), Hill v. State (1994)

39 state decisions

2101985199020002010decided

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. United States · McMann v. Richardson · Tollett v. Henderson · Blackledge v. Perry · Menna v. New York

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

  1. ““... provided however, before the defendant [tvho has been convicted based on a negotiated plea and the trial court assesses punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and his attorney] may prosecute his appeal, he must have the permission of the trial court, except on those matters which have been raised by written motion filed prior to trial...,” 7 (Emphasis Supplied).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The guilty plea under the circumstances is conclusive as to defendant’s guilt, admits all the facts charged and waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The reason this federal waiver rule is applicable only to ‘prior proceedings’ advancing a guilty plea is simply that an accused cannot waive a defect in proceedings that have not yet occurred. That is to say, one may not intentionally relinquish or abandon a violation of due process that is still unknown because it has not happened.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.