761 So. 2d 574 - State v. Jeff’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2005
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 621 So. 2d 780 - State v. Peart · State v. Touchet · 707 So. 2d 975 - State v. Jones · 637 So. 2d 437 - State v. Craig · 624 So. 2d 425 - State v. Wigley
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the trial court considered the motion, it held a portion of the hearing ex parte. Although the court initially said it would consider the defendant's motion during the ex parte hearing, the court actually made no determination under Touchet regarding defendant's request for funding for experts. The court also said it was not going to issue an order instructing defendant to present a request for funding to LIDAB. Part of the state's obligation in providing effective assistance of counsel to an indigent defendant is to provide the indigent defendant's attorney with the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.