State v. Collett’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Owens v. Kelley (1982), Reeves v. State (1999)
5 federal appellate · 54 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 170 Cal. App. 2d 596 - People v. Blakeman · 124 Ga. App. 190 - Inman v. State · Mayor &C. of Athens v. Gamma Delta Chapter House Corp. · 101 Ga. App. 225 - Gay v. State · 121 Ga. App. 231 - O'QUINN 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The probation and suspension statutes in Georgia vest broad discretion in trial judges. In 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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant in the present case has made only a general attack on the present sentence as being illegal, contending it is per se violative of public policy. There has been no showing in this case that the imposed condition to remain outside the seven specified counties for the period of the sentence (12 months) is unreasonable or otherwise fails to be a logical relationship to the rehabilitative scheme of the sentence pronounced for this drug crime... .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant in the present case has made only a general attack on the present sentence as being illegal, contending it is per se violative of public policy. There has been no showing in this case that the imposed condition... is unreasonable or otherwise fails to bear a logical relationship to the rehabilitative scheme of the sentence pronounced for this ... crime. When this is considered against the background of the power and authority a trial judge has under the law to suspend a sentence under such rules and regulations as he deems proper, we cannot agree the present sentence “is illegal and void,” as contended by the defendant. It has not been shown the trial judge abused his discretion in this case.”
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.