561 So. 2d 562 - Hatten v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably 878 So. 2d 361 - Schmidt v. Crusoe (2003), 561 So. 2d 1130 - In Re Order on Prosecution of Cr. App. (1990)
32 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 Evitts v. Lucey · Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. · State v. Meyer · 561 So. 2d 1130 - In Re Order on Prosecution of Cr. App. · 253 So. 2d 424 - Hooks 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer and that ... no other legal remedies [are] available.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If, at any time during the representation of two or more defendants, a public defender determines that the interest of those accused are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff without a conflict of interest ... then the public defender shall file a motion to withdraw and move the court to appoint other counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, where the backlog of cases in the public defender's office is so excessive that there is no possible way he can timely handle those cases, it is his responsibility to move the court to withdraw. If the court finds that the public defender's caseload is so excessive as to create a conflict, other counsel for the indigent defendant should be appointed pursuant to subsection 27.53(3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Skitka 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.