Brock v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2022
20 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 · Hill v. Lockhart · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Johnson v. Texas · In re Disbarment of Carnow
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the defendant alleges facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief, the trial court must hold a hearing. To prevent a possible deluge of unnecessary court proceedings, the second element of the test allows a trial court to deny a hearing if the defendant’s allegations are contradicted by the record, are inherently unreliable, or are merely conclusions rather than statements of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Valle v. State“lilf the defendant offers no plausible reason for withdrawal, the trial court has discretion to deny the motion without a hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyers v. State“the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does constitute a fair and just reason to grant [a] motion to withdraw.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.