State Ex Rel. Boyd v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably State v. Messier (1985), Hawthorne v. State (1982)
36 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 Morissette v. United States · People v. Wells · People v. Gorshen · State v. Strasburg · State v. Shaw
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . Criminal responsibility results when each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, (cites omitted) Only then is the State authorized to exercise its power to impose certain specified sanctions against the offender. The basis of an insanity defense is that a person is unable to form the requisite intent. Since intent is an element of most crimes, lack of intent precludes criminal responsibility. 355 So.2d 792 -793.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“An unconstitutional portion of a general law may be deleted and the remainder allowed to stand if the unconstitutional provision can be logically separated from the remaining provisions, i.e., if the expressed legislative purpose can be accomplished independently of those provisions which are void, if the valid and invalid provisions are not inseparable, if the Legislature would have passed one without the other, and if an act complete in itself remains after the invalid provisions are stricken. ... The test remains whether the portion to be stricken is of such import that the remainder would not be complete or would cause results not contemplated by the Legislature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is important to note, however, that under Wisconsin law a finding of insanity ‘is not a finding of inability to intend; it is rather a finding that under the applicable standard or test, the defendant is to be excused from criminal responsibility for his act.’ State v. Hebard, supra at 163. Such is not the law in Florida. . . . Wisconsin separates the issue of intent from that of insanity and allows the introduction of all evidence relevant to intent in that portion of the trial in which guilt or innocence is determined.” State ex rel. Boyd at 793-94 .”
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.