Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 F.2d 905 - Goodson v. Peyton

Goodson v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

351 F.2d 905 · 1965

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
11
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably 40 Ill. 2d 109 - The People v. Stoval (1968), 66 Ill. 2d 162 - People v. Kester (1977)

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states

21019651970198019902000decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Linkletter v. Walker · Von Moltke v. Gillies

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

  1. “[W]e think it may well be that the only workable rule of the future will be a per se one....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The federal constitution guarantees to persons accused of crime in state courts the right to representation by a lawyer. The constitutionally protected right is not satisfied by formalisms; the right is to effective representation. That is not to say that every indigent defendant is entitled to the services of the most competent lawyer practicing in the area or to one whose judgment as exercised during the course of his representation may be said to have been superior when subjected to subsequent scrutiny. It does mean that the indigent defendant is entitled to a lawyer who can give to his client undivided loyalty and faithful service. A lawyer forced, or attempting, to serve masters with conflicting interest cannot give to either the loyalty each deserves.”
    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.