Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Ariz. 572 - State v. Canaday

State v. Canaday’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2017

10 state decisions

4019771980199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Harrington v. California · Coleman v. Alabama · Simuel v. United States · Cass v. United States

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, the lawyer's skilled examination and cross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal weaknesses in the State's case that may lead the magistrate to refuse to bind the accused over. Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial. Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the preliminary hearing in making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination or bail. [ Coleman , 399 U.S. at 9 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 .]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “immediately perceived any prejudice resulting from [defendant's] failure to be represented at his preliminary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[a] defendant's opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at a preliminary hearing is only a limited one.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.