State v. Spencer’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
611 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 624 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Spera v. State (2007), 865 So. 2d 1253 - Topps v. State (2004)
611 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 728 So. 2d 1165 - Rivera v. State · 705 So. 2d 1379 - State v. Mancino · 661 So. 2d 1216 - Attwood v. Singletary · 627 So. 2d 1298 - Martin v. Circuit Court · Huffman 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 624 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury. . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mims v. State · Concepcion v. State“[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction [or sentence], abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Spera v. State · Henriquez v. State“To achieve the best balance of a litigant's right of access to courts and the need of the courts to prevent repetitious and frivolous pleadings, it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence. Further, providing notice and an opportunity to respond through the issuance of an order to show cause also serves to generate a more complete record. If the litigant is thereafter denied further pro se access to the courts, the appellate courts will have an enhanced ability to determine whether the denial of access is an appropriate sanction under the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.