Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 Ga. 516 - Benham v. State

Benham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Coleman v. State (2009), Henderson v. State (2009)

48 state decisions

280200420102020decided

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 · Braithwaite v. State · Doctor v. State · Stanford v. Stewart · 260 Ga. App. 243 - Benham 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, the person reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a [motor vehicle]. A person is justified in the use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and disorderly manner and the person reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person living or present in the [motor vehicle] and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]ven assuming that trial counsel in this case knowingly made the tactical decision to forego requesting a charge on defense of habitation, it is not a reasonable decision a competent attorney would have made under the same circumstances.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “does not automatically immunize trial counsel against a claim that a tactical decision or strategic maneuver was an unreasonable one no competent attorney would have made under the same circumstances.”
    2 later decisions 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.