Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 Ala. 548 - Square v. State

Square v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1989 · most notably Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), Wright v. North Carolina Et Al. (1974)

4 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

400196819701980decided

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 McCants 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Defendant says the so-called warning is defective in that defendant is not advised that the state will provide a lawyer to represent and advise defendant and to be present at and prior to the questioning if defendant desires a lawyer at that time. “Defendant’s point is well taken. The warning read to defendant not only does not say to defendant that the state will provide a lawyer for him prior to any questioning but does state: “‘ * * * We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to Court * * * ’ (Emphasis Supplied) "The italicized clause suggests that a lawyer will be provided only if defendant goes to court and negates the idea that a lawyer will be appointed ‘prior to any questioning.’ ””
    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.