Mendoza v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2012
9 state decisions
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 · Doyle v. Ohio · McKinney v. Baldwin · Harris v. State · McFarland 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The nature of the error; 2. The persistence of the prosecution in committing the error; 3. The flagrancy of the violation; 4. The particular instruction given; 5. The weight of the incriminating evidence; and 6. The harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Veteto v. State · Roberson v. State
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.