Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 So. 2d 365 - Demps v. Dugger

714 So. 2d 365 - Demps v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Furman v. Georgia · Clemons v. Mississippi · 507 So. 2d 1377 - Blanco v. Wainwright · 627 So. 2d 1170 - Anderson v. State · 267 So. 2d 8 - Anderson 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “After the governor signed a death warrant, Demps filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing. This Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Demps v. State, 416 So.2d [808] (Fla.1982). The trial court held a hearing and again denied relief. We affirmed. Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074 (Fla.1984). Pursuant to a second death warrant, Demps petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which we denied. Demps v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1987). We also affirmed the trial court's summary denial of Demps' second motion for rule 3.850 relief. Demps v. State, 515 So.2d 196 (Fla.1987). When Governor Martinez signed a third death warrant in April 1990, Demps filed the current petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This Court granted a stay of execution and Demps filed his third rule 3.850 motion in the trial court, which the court summarily denied. Demps now appeals that denial of 3.850 relief and seeks relief under his pending habeas petition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “By raising the issue in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, in addition to the rule 3.850 petition, collateral counsel has accomplished nothing except to unnecessarily burden this Court with redundant material.”
    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.