Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 934 P2D 346 - Mitchell v. State

Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006)

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

200199720002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Murray v. Carrier · McCleskey v. Zant · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Cooper v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “Walker at 333 , is in reality — at least on the surface — no requirement at all, and does nothing to differentiate one case from another. As I do not believe this Court actually committed time and resources toward the formulation of a test the first part of which is essentially worthless, I must conclude there is more to this first”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) whether controverted, previously unresolved factual issues material to the legality of the applicant's confinement exist; (2) whether the applicant's grounds were or could have been previously raised; and (3) whether relief may be granted....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “of the test this Court uses for ineffective counsel in post-conviction proceedings. This case, together with the other cases applying the Walker methodology, graphically illustrates the point I made in Walker . Simply requiring a petitioner show”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.