Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Kersey v. Hatch (2010), Ben-Yisrayl v. State (2000)
51 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 · Doyle v. Ohio · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Richardson v. State · Woods 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e view this exception [ (the fundamental error doctrine) ] as an extremely narrow one, available only when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles [of due process], and the harm or potential for harm [can]not be denied. While concerns over due process do sometimes merit invocation of a fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule on direct appeal, we think its availability as an exception to the waiver rule in post-conviction proceedings is generally limited to those circumstances we set forth in Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1263 (Ind.1985): “[Deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, or ... an issue demonstrably unavailable to the petitioner at the time of his [or her] trial and direct appeal.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Eubanks · Bigler v. State“a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure ... [it] is not available for retroactive application in post-conviction proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCann v. State · Martin v. State“in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense. Both of these considerations, the statutory elements test and the actual evidence test, are components of the double jeopardy”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kersey v. Hatch · Hopkins 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.