Mills v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

cited by 26 later decisions

states following

October 2015

most recently cited

26 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Stringer v. Black · Don Vicente Macias, Inc. v. Texas Gulf Trawling Co. · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“first, that the newly discovered evidence was unknown to the defendant or defendant's counsel at the time of trial and could not have been discovered through due diligence and, second, that the evidence is of such a character that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 850 So. 2d 417 - Marquard v. State · 928 So. 2d 1138 - Scipio v. State
“are not happenstance. This language was intended to and does convey to the reader the fact that a public records request under this rule is intended as an update of information previously received or requested. To hold otherwise would foster a procedure in which defendants make only a partial public records request during the initial postconviction proceedings and hold in abeyance other requests until such time as a warrant is signed. Such is neither the spirit nor the intent of the public records law. Rule 3.852 is not intended for use by defendants as, in the words of the trial court,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Moore v. State · 926 So. 2d 1100 - Rutherford v. State
“made with Gajus. However, the request merely parrots the language of the rule without further explanation of the relevance of these records. Thus, the record supports the trial court's finding that the requests are overbroad. Additionally, the trial court denied the requests because Diaz failed to show how the documents would lead to admissible evidence or relate to a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 945 So. 2d 1136 - Diaz 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.