Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 720 So. 2d 203 - Ragsdale v. State

720 So. 2d 203 - Ragsdale v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 759 So. 2d 650 - Thompson v. State (2000), 769 So. 2d 974 - Asay v. State (2000)

45 state decisions

330199820002010decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Jones v. State · Cherry v. State · 573 So. 2d 293 - Medina 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Arbelaez contends that testimony was available to show that his life was marked by abuse and deprivation, that he suffered from a lifetime of drug abuse, and that he suffered from mental illness and epilepsy and tried repeatedly to commit suicide; yet no witnesses were called by trial counsel to present this testimony. Arbelaez further contends that trial counsel never had him examined by a competent mental health expert for purposes of presenting mitigation. He asserts that he has now been examined by mental health experts who have found that he suffers from organic brain damage and epilepsy; is mentally retarded; and has an IQ of 67.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here the motion lacks sufficient factual allegations, or where alleged facts do not render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the motion may be summarily denied.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A summary or conclusory allegation is insufficient to allow the trial court to examine the specific allegations against the record.”
    2 later decisions 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.