Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 Ariz. 1 - State v. Meredith

State v. Meredith’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 1979
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. Green · State v. Brady · Applications of Oppenheimer · Kruchten v. Eyman

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.

  1. ““E. Immediately after the examinations by experts contemplated by subsections C and D of this section, the court shall hold a hearing to determine, on the basis of the expert testimony, including the evaluation, report and testimony of an official of the institution to which the defendant may have been committed, plus any other evidence regarding the defendant’s mental condition introduced by either party, whether the defendant is able to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense. The parties may, by stipulation, waive oral testimony at this hearing.” (Emphasis added)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel of his own choosing. A constitutional right to counsel is fulfilled when he is assigned counsel who is a qualified member of the Bar and acts diligently in the defendant’s behalf. Applications of Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz. 292 , 389 P.2d 696 , cert. denied, 377 U.S. 948 , 84 S.Ct. 1359 , 12 L.Ed.2d 311 (1964). See also Kruchten v. Eyman, 276 F.Supp. 858 (D.Ariz.1967), affirmed, 9 Cir., 406 F.2d 304 .” State v. Meredith, 106 Ariz. 1, 2 , 469 P.2d 820, 821 (1970).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““On October 15, 1968, counsel for both parties appeared in court, at which time the trial judge asked whether there was any request for a formal hearing. Neither party so requested. At that time defendant’s counsel stated that he saw no reason for a formal hearing. The hearing was thereby waived.””
    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.