Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Sheridan v. State (1993), Holloway v. State (1987)
4 federal appellate · 29 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 Edmonson v. Farris · Byler v. State · Braswell v. Gehl · Ladd v. Stubblefield · Morrow v. Watts
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“C. Disqualification (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding^] (d) he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree or [sic] relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person; (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; D. Remittal of Disqualification. A judge disqualified by the terms of Canon 3C(l)(c) or Canon 3C(l)(d) may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of his disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the judge’s relationship is immaterial or that his financial interest is insubstantial, the judge is no longer disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dyas v. Lockhart · Dyas v. Lockhart“Canon 3 C(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should disqualify in a proceeding "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy...." Clearly the revocation hearing falls within this provision. In Adams v. State , 269 Ark. 548 , 601 S.W.2d 881 (1980), the Supreme Court of Arkansas said of the provision pertaining to a judge's relationship to a lawyer in the case being tried: We hold that Canon 3C is applicable in criminal cases as well as civil cases, that it is applicable at the arraignment stage of a criminal proceeding, that it applies even though the prosecuting attorney and circuit judge each is a duly elected public official, that no request to disqualify and no objection for failure to disqualify is necessary to be made either by a trial attorney or by a party representing himself, that the trial judge must take the initiative to disqualify or, in the alternative, to comply with the procedure set out in Canon 3D, that this Court can, on its own initiative, examine the record to notice compliance or noncompliance, and that failure to comply is reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shaffer v. State
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.