United States v. Abbamonte’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.2d 700 · 1965
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 1982 · most notably United States v. Sperling (1974), United States v. Seale (1972)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Massiah v. United States · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Price v. Johnston · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Judge McLean could have reasonably inferred that appellant sought nothing more than a repetition of his maneuvers for delay, which was his real objective, by the tactic of firing still another lawyer, and that appellant had no intention of conducting his own defense because of any substantial dissatisfaction with his attorney. This would, of course, have been clearer if the court had followed the preferable procedure of inquiring of appellant whether he wished to continue with Mr. Krieger or, in the alternative, proceed pro se. But any reluctance we might have about resting our holding on inferences is dispelled by the conclusion that the appointment of Mr. Krieger helped rather than harmed Abbamonte . . . .” 348 F.2d at 704”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where a defendant able to retain counsel has been advised by the court that he must retain counsel by a certain reasonable time, and where there is no showing why he has not retained counsel within that time, the court may treat his failure to provide for his own defense as a waiver of his right to counsel and require such defendant to proceed to trial without an attorney. Such a waiver is similar in its consequences to an election made by an indigent defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot be . . . manipulated so as . . . to interfere with the fair administration of justice.”
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.