Bolkovac v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Scott v. Illinois (1979), Baker v. City of Fairbanks (1970)
3 federal appellate · 51 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Kaiser · Foster v. People of State of Illinois · Gibbs v. Burke · Wilson 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The language of the section, ‘In all criminal prosecutions,’ includes prosecutions for misdemeanors.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Borst · Eldridge v. State““On the question of waiver Mr. Justice Black, in Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S. Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L. Ed. 1461, 1467 , supra, speaking for the court, said: “ ‘The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * Since § 13 of Article 1 makes no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, the right to counsel must and does exist in misdemeanor cases to the same extent and under the same rules it exists in felony cases. Many misdemeanors provide substantial punishment by way of fine and imprisonment, and if we held there is no constitutional right to counsel in a misdemeanor case, the legislative door would be open for the destruction of this right by the simple devise of providing for imprisonment in the Indiana State Farm rather than the Indiana State Prison.””
2 later decisions 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.