Hamner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Roach v. State · Buie v. State · Haviland v. State · Dodson v. State · 156 Ind. App. 636 - Tooley 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hamner elected to proceed pro se and the post-conviction court, at its discretion, ordered the cause submitted by affidavit on Hamner's motion. Hamner submitted an Affidavit in Support of Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Ham-ner states that once it became clear that material facts continued to exist, he requested an evidentiary hearing on his Petition{ ]. Hammer further states that had the post-conviction court agreed that material issues of fact existed and ordered an evidentiary hearing date set, he would have then requested the issu-anmee of subpoenas for witnesses at the evidentiary hearing and at that time [would] specifically state by affidavit the reason the witness' testimony is required and the substance of the witness' expected testimony. - [Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(b) ] does not state when the affidavit must be submitted. The rule states what the petitioner is required to do "if the pro se petitioner requests issuance of subpoenas for witnesses at an evidentiary hearing." It does not state when a hearing will be held or under what circumstances a hearing will be held. Thus, an evidentiary hearing could first be set and then a petitioner could submit an affidavit [in compliance with Rule 1(9)(b) ]. An evidentiary hearing was never set. - Therefore, Hamner did not invite the error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“if the pro se petitioner requests issuance of subpoenas for witnesses at an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“pleadings conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith 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.