Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 837 So. 2d 905 - Valle v. Moore

837 So. 2d 905 - Valle v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jones v. Barnes · Skipper v. South Carolina · 622 So. 2d 982 - Huff v. State · 774 So. 2d 637 - Rutherford v. Moore

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

  1. “necessarily ineffective for failing to raise a claim that might have had some possibility of success; effective appellate counsel need not raise every conceivable nonfrivolous issue.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “With regard to evidentiary objections which trial counsel made during the trial and which appellate counsel did not raise on direct appeal, this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first. In doing so, we begin our review of the prejudice prong by examining the specific objection made by trial counsel for harmful error. A successful petition must demonstrate that the erroneous ruling prejudiced the petitioner. If we conclude that the trial court's ruling was not erroneous, then it naturally follows that habeas petitioner was not prejudiced on account of appellate counsel's failure to raise that issue. If we do conclude that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous, we then consider whether such error is harmful error. If that error was harmless, the petitioner likewise would not have been prejudiced.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even when a capital defendant makes a voluntary and intelligent waiver of the advisory jury's recommendation, the trial judge `may in his or her discretion either require an advisory jury recommendation, or may proceed to sentence the defendant without such an advisory jury recommendation.'”
    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.