Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 776 SO2D 332 - Boehm v. State

Boehm v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 547 So. 2d 912 - Kennedy v. State · 727 So. 2d 236 - LeCroy v. Dugger · 764 So. 2d 868 - Kitchen v. State · 722 So. 2d 933 - McKinney 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the defendant must show either that he told his attorney that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense or that he told his attorney of his addiction and there was record evidence that should have alerted his attorney to his possible intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient that the attorney should have investigated the claim.”
    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.