Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 804 SW2D 746 - State v. Wells

State v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2019

3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

120199120002010decided

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 · State v. Wacaser · Hayes 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It certainly cannot be said that the trial judge overlooked Strickland . His findings show that he was quite aware of the Strickland test and purported to apply it. The defendant’s trial counsel, in her cross-examination, asserted considerations of trial strategy in not obtaining the letter, but the judge said pointedly that he did not believe her explanation. He considered the letter an important piece of evidence which any capable lawyer would like to have, and observed that she could have tried to get it.... The state simply argues that the trial judge made the wrong call on the facts. But we have often observed that the trial judge is in a better position to ascertain the possible effect of the impeaching letter than we are.... It is also important that the same judge presided at the trial and at the 29.15 hearing, and was thus better equipped to assess the strengths and possible weaknesses of the prosecution’s case.... We are not disposed to depart from our usual practice, so as to substitute our factual conclusions for his carefully considered determinations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that the same judge presided at the trial and at the [Rule] 29.15 hearing, and was thus better equipped to assess the strengths and possible weaknesses of the prosecution's case.”
    1 later decision 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.