749 So. 2d 534 - Hollinger v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2006
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · Hunter v. State · 737 So. 2d 509 - Gaskin v. State · 695 So. 2d 263 - Johnson v. Singletary
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he reason indigent criminal defendants are afforded competent appellate counsel is to make sure their due process rights are protected. If appellate counsels fail to properly represent them, they have been denied that constitutional protection. It appears unfair to then take the position they should have raised an issue on direct appeal themselves when clearly they are not competent to represent themselves; else why appoint appellate counsel in the first place?”
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.