Ex Parte Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Ex Parte Kerr (2002), Ex Parte Cristela GARCIA, Appellee (2011)
28 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 Boykin v. State · Ramos v. State · Ex Parte Renier · State v. Mancuso · Brown 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than death.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ex Parte Whiteside · Ex Parte Kerr“If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is filed after final disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that: (1) the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in a previously considered application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application; or (2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Santana“Both the definition of conviction and this Court's case law regarding writ applications lead us to the conclusion that the procedural bar of § 4 is limited to instances in which the initial application raises claims regarding the validity of the prosecution or the judgment of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ex Parte McPherson
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.