Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 F.3d 859 - Hamilton v. Groose

Hamilton v. Groose’s Empirical Analysis

28 F.3d 859 · 1994

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
10
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 15 Cal. 4th 1 - People v. Marshall (1997), State v. Stenson (1997)

15 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1901994200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Faretta v. California · Brewer v. Williams · Sumner v. Mata · Godinez v. Moran · Sloan v. Hicks

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

  1. “indulge in every reasonable presumption against [a defendant's] waiver”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Court: All right. Let me ask you, how serious are you about wanting to represent yourself?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “I am not asking to proceed pro se totally.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.