Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Harris v. Nelson · Bracy v. Gramley · State v. Marshall · State v. Steinbach · Zeigler v. Church of the Brethren General Board
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because post-conviction relief cases are not an opportunity to relitigate issues, it is the unusual case in which a post-conviction relief court will compel discovery, limited to issues upon which relief is available. This is because post-conviction relief is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means for vindicating actual claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman v. State“The court, for good cause, may grant leave to either party to use the discovery procedures available in criminal or civil proceedings. Discovery procedures may be used only to the extent and in the manner the court has ordered or to which the parties have agreed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman v. State“A district court has broad discretion in defining the scope of discovery, and we will not reverse a court's discovery decision absent an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman 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.