Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 Ga. App. 15 - Tam v. State

232 Ga. App. 15 - Tam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014

6 state decisions

50199820002010decided

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 206 Ga. App. 27 - Kirkland v. State · 223 Ga. App. 569 - Fields v. State · 195 Ga. App. 504 - Blane v. State · 225 Ga. App. 101 - Tam v. State · 224 Ga. App. 881 - Guinn 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A “crime” is a violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence. OCGA § 16-2-1. Intent is therefore an essential element of all crimes except those involving criminal negligence, although some crimes require an additional showing of specific intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To prove DUI, the State need not prove intent to commit the crime [,] but it must show the condition of being under the influence of alcohol to the extent of impairment and the intent to drive while in this condition. This general intent may be inferred from the conduct of the accused and other circumstances. OCGA § 16-2-6.”
    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.