Nave v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001
6 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 Strickland v. Washington · Seales v. State · State v. McDonald · Futrell v. State · Stokes 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he problem was not trial counsel's question; the problem was Beeman's memory or credibility. Defense counsel cannot be held ineffective merely because different counsel, three years later, was able to formulate a question which elicited the desired response from Beeman.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nave v. Delo · Nave v. Delo“[t]he more bizarre and out of control [Nave] was at the time of the crimes, the more it would support [his] claim of blackout, psychosis, and intoxication.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nave v. Delo · Nave v. Delo“evidence that [Nave] was intoxicated the night before the crime does not mean he was intoxicated the morning of the murder, approximately 11 hours later.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nave v. Delo · Nave v. Delo
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.