United States v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.3d 1199 · 1999
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Cooper (2004), United States v. Kind (1999)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 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
Relies on Faretta v. California · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Bounds v. Smith · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Crisp v. Rubin
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a pro se defendant, having been offered and waived a chance to have someone like [standby counsel] represent him who would have access to legal materials, the defendant is not entitled to access to a law library.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is well established that providing legal counsel is a constitutionally acceptable alternative to a prisoner's demand to access a law library.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rohwedder“involuntary if he is forced to choose between incompetent counsel or appearing pro se.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.