507 So. 2d 1043 - Markley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2022
13 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 Walker v. City of Birmingham · Economic Research Analysts, Inc. v. O'Connell · United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez · United States v. Pierce · Malone v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by accepting the conditions of probation as tendered in circuit court ..., the appellant must be bound by its terms,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The test for validity of probation conditions, even where ‘preferred’ rights are affected, is whether they are primarily designed to meet the ends of rehabilitation and protection of the public. [United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez (9th Cir. 1975), 521 F.2d 259 , 265 n.14.] ‘The conditions must be “reasonably related” to the purposes of the Act. Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement.’ [United States v. Pierce (9th Cir. 1977), 561 F.2d 735, 739 .]” (Markley, 507 So. 2d at 1051 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The courts may lawfully impose conditions upon a party’s speech, association or assembly as noted in the opinions herein to preserve public order and for the protection of the accused. See Oyoghok v. Anchorage, 641 P.2d 1267 , 28 A.L.R.4th 717 (1982). See also, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, [ 521 F.2d 259, 264 (9th Cir.1975) ], and Malone v. United States, [ 502 F.2d 554 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975)], and United States v. Lowe, supra.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. King v. State
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.