Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 344 F.2d 1 - Root v. Cunningham

Root v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

344 F.2d 1 · 1965

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2005
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2005 · most notably Maryland v. Marzullo (1978), Williams v. Beto (1965)

45 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions

55019651970198019902000decided

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 Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · O'Connell v. Manning · Snead v. Smyth · Near v. Cunningham

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

  1. “* * * (O)rdinarily, one is deprived of effective assistance of counsel only in those extreme instances where the representation is so transparently inadequate as to make a farce of the trial.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 , the Supreme Court said that the presence of an accused during prosecution for a felony is a condition of due process only to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and that his privilege to be present in person during prosecution must have a reasonable substantial relation to fullness of opportunity to defend against the charge. We find that the absence of the appellant in this case from the court’s chambers during consideration [of] instructions bore no ‘reasonable substantial relation’ to his ‘fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge’ for which he was on trial.””
    1 later decision 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.