Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 SO2D 12 - Isom v. State

Isom v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2005

11 state decisions

80198619902000decided

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 Ake v. Oklahoma · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · 479 So. 2d 76 - Ex Parte Grayson · Tuggle v. Commonwealth · 421 So. 2d 1364 - Bailey 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'We therefore hold that when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Our concern is that the indigent defendant have access to a competent psychiatrist for the purpose we have discussed, and as in the case of the provision of counsel we leave to the State the decision on how to implement this right.' Ake, 470 U.S. at [83], 105 S.Ct. at 1097 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53. "Even under Ake , the defendant's motion was properly denied, as the indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. 470 U.S. at [83], 105 S.Ct. at 1097 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 . See also Clark v. State , 467 So.2d 699 , 702 (Fla. 1985); Tuggle v. Commonwealth , 230 Va. 99 , 334 S.E.2d 838 , 843 (1985); Commwealth v. Erickson , 356 Mass. 63 , 248 N.E.2d 270 (1969).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is to be noted that Ake does not reach noncapital cases. Ake , 470 U.S. at [86], 105 S.Ct. at 1099 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (Burger, C.J., concurring).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial , the United States Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue, if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one.”
    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.