Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 851 SW2D 868 - Meek v. State

Meek v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Bigby v. State (1994), Ex Parte Sadberry (1993)

27 state decisions

200199320002010decided

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 Marin v. State · Breazeale v. State · Ex Parte Collier

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

  1. “... conditioned, however, that such waiver must be made in person by the defendant in writing....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The harmless error rule in general, and Rule 81(b)(2) in particular, was not designed for the hypothetical retrial of defective criminal litigation in the appellate courts. Speculation about the possible effect of ignoring prophylactic procedural rules, let alone disregarding essential features of the adversary process, is always a perverse and inappropriate application of the harmless error doctrine. Indeed, it is precisely because many of these rules define, in the aggregate, what is a tolerably fair trial under our system of criminal justice that their disregard must necessarily undermine the confidence in the outcome of trial. Otherwise, we may eventually come to believe that denying an accused even the assistance of counsel is harmless whenever the jury would almost certainly have convicted him in any event. For this reason, the harmless error doctrine is broadly consistent with a rule- governed system of adjudication only when it does not threaten to undermine the very precepts which distinctly specify the fair operation of that system. These precepts include not only fundamental rules of due process and due course of law, but prophylactic rules of procedure designed, in most cases by the Legislature, to impose a uniform requirement where the fairness of a flexible rule is too uncertain.”
    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.