Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 910 So. 2d 167 - Boyd v. State

910 So. 2d 167 - Boyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 970 So. 2d 312 - McDuffie v. State (2007), 934 So. 2d 1100 - Simmons v. State (2006)

64 state decisions

400200520102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Dusky v. United States · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; (b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and (c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Once a defendant is determined competent to stand trial, a presumption of competence attaches to the defendant in later proceedings. However, another competency hearing is required if a bona fide question as to the defendant's competency has been raised. We will affirm the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[C]ross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief. . . .”
    2 later decisions 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.