Ronnie Hawkins v. Joan Comparet-Cassani’s Empirical Analysis
251 F.3d 1230 · 2001
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California (2001), Molski v. Gleich (2003)
33 federal appellate · 16 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 Graham v. Connor · Faretta v. California · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Gerstein v. Pugh · O'Shea v. Littleton
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The stun belt offers more effective protection of courtroom security than alternative methods. Activated by the touch of a button, it can neutralize a security threat instantly and remotely. So long as the prejudice resulting from its use is no greater than that of the alternatives, we should be reluctant to deny recourse to what may be a valuable tool in protecting courtroom security. "We have seen that in shifting the focus from disruption to security, the belt's `chilling' effect becomes less prejudicial and the alternatives more so. For this reason, the district court findings regarding disruption do not support the injunction in the context of security. We therefore conclude the district court abused its discretion in ruling that a serious question of a Sixth Amendment violation existed as to the use of stun belts to maintain courtroom security." 251 F.3d at 1242 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Morris v. State · State v. Powell“Id. For the reason discussed below, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in the present case when it certified a class including members with pending legalization applications. 108 As discussed above in section II.C, plaintiffs with pending legalization applications have claims that are ripe under Justice O'Connor's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“threats of violence or escape are sufficiently identifiable to permit a defendant to advocate his cause without fear that excessive zealousness will be mistaken for such a threat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Powell
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.