29 So. 3d 1045 - McLean v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ring v. Arizona · 274 So. 2d 256 - Nelson v. State · 714 So. 2d 411 - Urbin v. State · 648 So. 2d 660 - Heath v. State · 679 So. 2d 710 - Pope 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.
“[A] defendant is not entitled to a Nelson hearing “where a defendant presents general complaints about defense counsel’s trial strategy and no formal allegations of incompetence have been made.” Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 440 (Fla.2002); see also Sexton v. State, 775 So.2d 923, 931 (Fla.2000) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to a Nelson hearing when he “was merely noting his disagreement with his attorney’s trial strategy ... and was not asserting a sufficient basis to support a contention that his attorney was incompetent”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crosby v. State“McLean’s capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the avoid arrest aggra-vator;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.