637 So. 2d 645 - State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2016
16 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 Boykin v. Alabama · 354 So. 2d 1332 - State v. Schwartz · 549 So. 2d 351 - State v. Kotwitz · 421 So. 2d 224 - State v. Lewis · 618 So. 2d 574 - State v. Essex
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In support of his motion to set aside his guilty pleas, defendant introduced into evidence a letter typed on Gregory Caver’s, his former attorney’s, letterhead, addressed “To Whom It May Concern” and dated December 1,1992. The letter stated that Mr. Caver represented Mr. Hall | ^(defendant) on all criminal charges and that “after reviewing the matters with all District Attorneys involved, and upon agreement with the Judge presiding over his cases, Mr. Hall is to be placed on supervised probation.” During questioning, defendant admitted that he got his former attorney to write this letter to the finance company who had repossessed his car. According to defendant, in order to get his car back, he needed verification that he would not be going to jail, but would be placed on probation. This letter was written prior to the guilty pleas and while Hall was- on bond. The state objected to this letter on the basis of hearsay and lack of authentication. The trial court allowed the letter into evidence, but stated that “Mr. Caver was not called, and I have the unsubstantiated allegation that that was the purpose of this letter. It does not take the place of the court’s discussion with the defendant on the record under oath.””
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.