Rayburn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2005
2 federal appellate · 15 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 Frank v. Mangum · Moore v. Dempsey · Ashe v. United States ex rel. Valotta · Commonwealth v. Millen · Kelley v. State of Oregon
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Another assignment of error is that appellant was brought into the court room handcuffed in the presence of the jury, and that handcuffs were placed upon him on each occasion as he was taken from the courtroom, a fact also observed by the jury. The trial lasted for three days, and no complaint of this action was made during its progress. No contention is made that appellant was prevented from freely consulting with his attorney. This, we think, was a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Certainly, it was the duty of the officers to prevent appellant’s escape, and they had the right to take such precautions as appeared to them to be reasonably necessary to prevent it. The case of Commonwealth v. Millen, 289 Mass. 441 , 194 N.E. 463 , is one decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in which case the defendants were shackled during their trial, and the court refused to order the removal of the shackles during the trial. It was insisted that the presiding judge had abrogated his authority and control over the defendants in the courtroom to the sheriff, and that this was a violation of the rights of the defendants to due process under the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. The defendants were not denied the right to freely confer with their counsel. In overruling this contention it was said: 'It was also the duty of the sheriff to see that the defendants when placed upon their trial were properly guarded to insure their presence there, and that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State · Deck v. Missouri““A private citizen, who is not an officer, may arrest, without a warrant, one who has committed a felony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cook v. Pitre
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.