878 So. 2d 1236 - Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 735 state decisions

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

1. “[D]ismissal, rather than transfer, of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is appropriate when the petitioner seeks "the kind of collateral postconviction relief available through a motion filed in the sentencing court, and which (1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, (2) raise claims that could have been raised at trial or, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, or (3) would be considered a second or successive motion under rule 3.850 that either fails to allege new or different grounds for relief that were known or should have been known at the time the first motion was filed."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Richardson v. State · 245 So. 3d 992 - Anicet v. Jones

2. “The history of rule 3.850 ... indicates that it was intended to provide a procedural mechanism for raising those collateral postconviction challenges to the legality of criminal judgments that were traditionally cognizable in petitions for writs of habeas corpus .... [and] essentially transfer[] consideration of these traditional habeas claims from the court having territorial jurisdiction over the prison where the prisoner is detained to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. State · Farrell v. State

3. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this rule, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State · Diaz v. State