Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 842 So. 2d 1280 - Wiley v. State

842 So. 2d 1280 - Wiley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Sutton v. United States · Berkery v. Commissioner · Cablevision Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc.

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

  1. “As stated previously, Wiley’s present counsel, McDuff, filed a motion to vacate the appointment of Levidiotis and substitute himself as counsel “without payment” in the United States District Court in 1998. Present counsel also represented Wiley on his last PCR in this Court, which was denied June 3, 1999. The motion for rehearing was denied February 3, 2000. Wiley centers much of his argument around Jackson v. State, 732 So.2d 187 (Miss.1999), which allowed appointment of counsel and consideration of reasonable litigation expenses. However, the motion in Jackson was granted January 28, 1999, which was prior to the denial of both Wiley’s PCR and his motion for rehearing. Wiley has already raised the argument of this “intervening decision” with this Court via his motion for rehearing and separate motion for appointment of counsel and for litigation expenses; now he is essentially seeking a rehearing of that motion under the guise of a post-conviction claim by combining it with a “new” claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the record reflects that evidence of all of the mitigating factors Wiley alludes to was introduced during the sentencing trial by other witnesses and that there was no need for cumulative testimony.”
    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.