Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 So. 2d 780 - Bolden v. State

875 So. 2d 780 - Bolden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

26 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 613 So. 2d 569 - Brown v. State · 585 So. 2d 1079 - Coon v. State · 845 So. 2d 174 - Amendment to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure · 630 So. 2d 660 - Stone v. State · Kern 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the trial court finds that a motion to return property is facially sufficient, it may order the State to respond by citing applicable case law and attaching portions of the record to refute the defendant's contention that the property should be returned, after which the motion may be summarily denied. Durain [v. State, 765 So.2d 880, 880-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)]. In the alternative, the trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “However, if the State is `unable to connect the items to specific criminal activity, and no one else can be identified who can demonstrate a superior possessory interest in the property, it should be returned to [the defendant] or to such person(s) as he may designate.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Because consideration of a motion for the return of property is governed by procedures similar to those used in post-conviction proceedings, general principles of postconviction relief govern the necessity for the defendant’s presence. A defendant is not entitled to be present as a matter of right; however, when “there are questions of fact within the defendant’s own knowledge which must be resolved, the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to testify and cross-examine witnesses.” Harrell v. State, 458 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(citing Alfonso v. State, 319 So.2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)).”
    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.