State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Deck (1999), State v. Middleton (1999)
98 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley · Hill v. Lockhart
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]llege facts, not refuted by the record, showing that counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care, and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney and that the movant was thereby prejudiced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. State · Gray v. State“Appellant contended in his amended motion that the state had in its possession material, exculpatory evidence that the state failed to turn over to the defense. He sought to establish a claim of violation of Brady v. Mainland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Appellant’s claim is patently frivolous. It is entirely speculative and conelusional. There is no authority in law for the proposition that a defendant may simply make a general allegation of a Brady violation so as to require the motion court to grant an evidentiary hearing and to order that the state discloses its entire file so that a criminal defendant may cast about, attempting to discover whether or not a Brady violation may have occurred. Appellant’s claim requires no further discussion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ferguson“First, the defendant must raise a Batson challenge with regard to one or more specific venirepersons struck by the [S]tate and must identify the cognizable racial group to which the venireperson or persons belong. The [Sjtate then must present reasonably specific and clear race-neutral explanations for the challenged strike. Assuming the prosecutor is able to articulate an acceptable reason for the strike, the defendant then needs to show that the [S]tate’s proffered reasons for the strike were merely pretextual and that the strikes were racially motivated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jackson
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.