State v. Hancock’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 1998
20 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
Relies on 36 Ill. 2d 228 - The People v. Watson · 2 Ariz. App. 458 - State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima · Schmidt v. Uhlenhopp · State v. Meeks · State v. Holland
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * [Section 775.5] lodges limited discretionary power in the trial court to disburse reasonable compensation to an attorney defending an indigent for the purpose of conducting an investigation in the interests of justice. “In Schmidt v. Uhlenhopp, 258 Iowa 771, 775 , 140 N.W.2d 118, 121 , and Weaver v. Herrick, 258 Iowa 796, 803 , 140 N.W.2d 178, 182 , we say section 775.5 contemplates an attorney should not be expected to defend an accused gratuitously. To which we now add it also recognizes a court appointed attorney should not be required to incur personal expenses in preparing and conducting a meaningful and conscientious defense for the accused. “The statute clearly protects against frivolous, unwarranted claims by restricting payment to those investigations which in the court’s judgment are necessary in the interests of justice.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams · State v. McGhee“An independent analysis of defendant’s handwriting conducted by an expert of her own choosing could well have resulted in a conclusion diametrically opposed to that reached by Barton [the state’s expert]. In denying her request the court effectively prevented defendant from even the possibility of obtaining evidence which may have been highly relevant and material to a meaningful defense. Such an opportunity could not have been denied a defendant of means. Defendant’s indigency should not be permitted to stand as a barrier to such vital evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Van Scoyoc“Such amendment shall not be ordered when it will have the effect of charging the accused with an offense which is different than the offense which was intended to be charged in the indictment as returned by the grand jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sharpe
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.