Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 SO2D 579 - Nelson v. State

Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

138
cited by 138 later decisions
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Spera v. State (2007), 944 So. 2d 208 - State v. Green (2006)

3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions

93020042010decided

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 · 761 So. 2d 1055 - Freeman v. State · Peede v. State · State v. Glatzmayer · 737 So. 2d 509 - Gaskin 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We do not, however, want postconviction relief to be denied simply because of a pleading defect if that pleading defect could be remedied by a good faith amendment to the motion. Therefore, when a defendant fails to allege that a witness would have been available, the defendant should be granted leave to amend the motion within a specified time period. If no amendment is filed within the time allowed, then the denial can be with prejudice.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]f a witness would not have been available to testify at trial, then the defendant will not be able to establish deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's failure to call, interview, or investigate that witness.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a facially sufficient postconviction motion alleging the ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to call certain witnesses must include an assertion that those witnesses would in fact have been available to testify at trial.”
    2 later decisions 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.