722 So. 2d 1255 - Sneed v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 732 So. 2d 184 - Kennedy v. State (1999), Maston v. State (1999)
40 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 522 So. 2d 762 - Clowers v. State · 461 F. Supp. 565 - United States v. Sine
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to be free from an illegal sentence has been found to be fundamental.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rowland v. State · Moss v. State“any order dismissing the prisoner's motion or otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this chapter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Maston v. State · Buice v. State“A motion for relief under this chapter shall be made within three (3) years after the time in which the prisoner's direct appeal is relied upon by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, or in case no appeal is taken, within three (3) years after the time for taking an appeal from the judgment of conviction or sentence has expired, or in case of a guilty plea, within three (3) years after entry of the judgment of conviction. Excepted from this three-year statute of limitations are the following are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the state of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has new evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maston 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.