Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 F.3d 576 - Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board

Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board’s Empirical Analysis

121 F.3d 576 · 1997

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Winkelman Ex Rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007), Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education (1998)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

2401997200020102020decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Faretta v. California · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · McKaskle v. Wiggins · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord

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

  1. “helps ensure that children rightfully entitled to legal relief are not deprived of their day in court by unskilled, if caring, parents.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although we recognize that a trial court’s order requiring counsel is in part remediable after final judgment , we believe that the right to represent one’s self is effectively lost if not immediately vindicated. The harm in erroneously denying a party leave to proceed pro se is that it injures his/her dignity and autonomy, and this harm cannot be repaired after a judgment on the merits. Moreover, this harm exists quite apart from any prejudice a party might incur from trying his/her case with an unwanted attorney....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “permits authorized representatives, including parents, to sue on behalf of minors, but does not confer any right upon such representatives to serve as legal counsel.”
    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.