Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 SO2D 98 - State v. Youngblood

State v. Youngblood’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
October 1994
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 1994 · most notably State v. Hill (1971), State v. Bell (1982)

1 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

2501968197019801990decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Hamilton v. Alabama · White v. State of Maryland · Belton v. State

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

  1. “"We have held in Belton v. State, opinion filed December 17, 1968, that: "(1) When a joint defendant requests separate counsel, his request should be granted unless the state can clearly demonstrate for the record that prejudice will not result from a denial. If request is made and the record shows prejudice from denial or is silent on the subject, such denial will constitute reversible error. "(2) If no request for separate counsel is made and the Court permits trial of joint defendants with single counsel, then reversible error does not occur unless the record reveals that some prejudice results from the failure to appoint separate lawyers for each defendant."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Obviously, if joint representation of co-defendants by the same lawyer necessarily results in prejudice, the court could not have reached different results for Glasser [and his co-defendant].”
    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.