708 So. 2d 73 - Ford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 863 So. 2d 776 - Wilcher v. State (2003), 748 So. 2d 703 - Gable v. State (1999)
60 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 430 So. 2d 832 - Read v. State · 440 So. 2d 278 - Sanders v. State · 434 So. 2d 212 - Smith v. State · 553 So. 2d 505 - Fleming v. State · 556 So. 2d 1059 - Moore v. Ruth
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must specifically allege facts showing that effective assistance of counsel was not in fact rendered, and he must allege with specificity the fact that but for such purported actions by ineffective counsel, the results of the trial court decision would have been different.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wilcher v. State · Beall v. State“[t]he State argues that this issue must be summarily dismissed because Bishop failed to allege, with specificity, facts showing ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court agrees. Bishop's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel `lack[s] the specificity and detail required to establish a prima facie showing.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, the fact that there [are] no affidavits does not in and of itself render the motion invalid. The statute states affidavits are required of those witnesses that will testify. Thus, if there are no witnesses to the allegations asserted by the appellant, there is no requirement for supporting affidavits. Rather, the appellant may attest to the facts that he intends to prove through his petition. Thus, a [PCCR motion] is not properly denied based solely on the fact that there are no supporting affidavits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. State · Castro v. State
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.