Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 So. 3d 1123 - Marek v. State

8 So. 3d 1123 - Marek v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Furman v. Georgia · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Rompilla v. Beard

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

  1. “With regard to the claim about the length of time Marek has spent on death row, we have previously rejected similar arguments. In Tompkins [v. State], 994 So.2d [1072, 1085 (Fla.2008)], we held that twenty-three years on death row did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We explained that “this Court recognized that ‘no federal or state court has accepted the argument that a prolonged stay on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially where both parties bear responsibility for the long delay.’ ” Id. (quoting Booker v. State, 969 So.2d 186, 200 (Fla.2007)). In this case, Marek has contributed to the delay of his execution by filing several postconviction motions and habeas petitions. He has also been a party to several class action proceedings. As we stated in Tompkins, “He cannot now contend that his punishment has been illegally prolonged because the delay in carrying out his sentence is in large part due to his own actions in challenging his conviction and sentence.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because a postconviction court's decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.851 motion is ultimately based on written materials before the court, its ruling is tantamount to a pure question of law, subject to de novo review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “claims may be summarily denied when they are legally insufficient, should have been brought on direct appeal, or are positively refuted by the record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.