813 So. 2d 31 - Bottoson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

cited by 12 later decisions

cited 1 times by the Supreme Court

states following

June 2017

most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Penry v. Lynaugh · Jones v. Howard · Bottoson v. Florida · 622 So. 2d 982 - Huff 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“This Court has consistently held that habeas claims wherein the defendant challenges this Court's previous standard of review in the case are procedurally barred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Rodriguez v. State · Sochor v. State
“We recognize and honor the trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 824 So. 2d 115 - Bottoson v. Moore · 959 So. 2d 146 - Brown v. State
“In Bottoson's third and final habeas claim, he alleges that the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), applies to Florida's capital sentencing statute. We have consistently rejected similar claims and have decided this issue adversely to Bottoson's position. See King v. State, 808 So.2d 1237 (Fla.2002), stay granted, 534 U.S. 1118 , 122 S.Ct. 932 , 151 L.Ed.2d 894 (2002); Mills v. Moore, 786 So.2d 532, 536-537 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1015 , 121 S.Ct. 1752 , 149 L.Ed.2d 673 (2001); see also Brown v. Moore, 800 So.2d 223 (Fla.2001) (rejecting claims that aggravating circumstances are required to be charged in indictment, submitted to jury during guilt phase, and found by unanimous jury verdict); Mann v. Moore, 794 So.2d 595, 599 (Fla.2001). Thus, we conclude that Bottoson is not entitled to relief on this claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 824 So. 2d 127 - King v. Moore · 824 So. 2d 115 - Bottoson v. Moore

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.