Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 GAAPP 9 - Pitts v. State

Pitts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 215 Ga. App. 396 - Tuttle v. State · 165 Ga. App. 150 - Brock v. State · 185 Ga. App. 546 - Stephens v. State · Means 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The sentence, however, was well within the appropriate range of punishment for the misdemeanor offense at issue here. See OCGA § 40-6-1 (a) ; OCGA §§ 17-10-3 (a), (b), (d) (2), (d) (4). Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing general conditions of probation, such as that Oduok violate no criminal laws, report to his probation officer, and not leave the State without permission from the probation supervisor. See OCGA § 17-10-3 (d) (4) (following a misdemeanor conviction, a judge may probate or suspend”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n the absence of express authority to the contrary, we see no logical reason why any reasonable condition imposed for probation or suspension of a sentence by a trial court should not be approved. Probated and suspended sentences, upon reasonable conditions, have traditionally been used by trial judges in Georgia as effective tools of rehabilitation and serve a useful purpose in appropriate cases as an alternative to confinement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “all or any part of a penalty upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the judge”
    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.