Swanson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2009 · most notably Cone v. Bell (2009), Cone v. Bell (2001)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Rose v. Clark · Reed v. Ross · Yates v. Aiken · Baxter v. Rose
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)(1) A ground for relief is “waived” if the petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a ground for relief not raised in any such proceeding which was held was waived.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith · Cone v. State“No petition for relief shall be dismissed for failure to follow the prescribed form or procedure until after the judge has given the petitioner reasonable opportunity, with the aid of counsel, to file an amended petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Smith · Allen v. State“... [T]he Act ... does not necessarily contemplate that one and only one post-conviction petition will be allowed to any one petitioner in every case. The terms of the statute itself permit more than one petition when justified. Like any legislation, the Act is to be construed in pari materia to achieve its intended purposes. T.C.A. § 40-30-105 expressly permits relief when the grounds were not recognized at the time of the conviction and have been applied retroactively. This provision necessarily allows more than one petition to be filed in some cases. [[Image here]] The simple fact that a petitioner has had one bite at the post-conviction apple does not ipso facto preclude another bite when the petitioner can show that no knowing and understanding waiver of a ground for relief was made, or that the claim was not previously determined, or that it was unavailable at the time of any prior proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laney 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.