Ex Parte Poe’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Asberry v. State (1991), State v. Ross (1997)
1 federal appellate · 31 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 Polk v. State · Alvarez v. State · Ex Parte Dopps · Shaw v. State · Hughes 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... The three alternative methods of a proper affirmative finding delineated in Polk, supra, merely serve as the factual basis on which a finding of use and exhibition of deadly weapon is justifiably entered in the judgment.” “... As we made clear in Ex parte Brooks, supra, a recitation of the offense in the judgment with the words ‘deadly weapon’ is insufficient.... Likewise, a reference to a weapon, which is deadly per se, in the judgment is also an insufficient entry in the judgment.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“On an affirmative finding under this subdivision, the trial court shall enter the finding in the judgment of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Creeks v. State · State v. Ross““... Such an affirmative finding is not a recitation of the offense in the judgment with the words ‘deadly weapon,’ ‘firearm,’ or other similar phrases added to the offense for which a defendant is convicted. Nor is an affirmative finding made and entered when the judgment reflects the verdict of the jury and that verdict refers to a weapon.” (emphasis in original) ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ “... Although the jury’s verdict as the trier of fact in certain circumstances may constitute an affirmative finding being made, Polk, supra; it is necessary for an affirmative finding to be entered separately and specifically in the judgment of the court by the trial court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hooks 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.