State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2014
8 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Covell v. Heyman · Knapp v. Hardy
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although this court's opinion finds nothing in A.R.S. § 11-584 to allow public defenders to represent Arizona defendants in federal courts, I do not find anything in that section or any other law in Arizona which would preclude public defenders from doing so. Perhaps this court is worried about taxpayers' funds being used to pay lawyers to represent indigent defendants in federal courts. This concern does not have its source in the wording of A.R.S. § 11-584 or any supporting statute. It is possible that this problem may even be avoided if continued representation were allowed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Lewis“A. The public defender shall perform the following duties: 1. Upon order of the court, defend, advise and counsel ... any person who is not financially able to employ counsel in the following proceedings: (a) Offenses triable in the superior, municipal or justice courts at all stages of the proceedings ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Lewis“the body charged with establishing, employing and paying the public defender, and therefore appears to be the more appropriate party to complain of actions by the public defender which might be in excess of his authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Lewis
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.