Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 365 F.2d 563 - Braxton v. Peyton

Braxton v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

365 F.2d 563 · 1966

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
August 1985
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 1985 · most notably Coles v. Peyton (1968), United States v. Anderson (1973)

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

190196619701980decided

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 Webb v. Commonwealth · Jones v. Cunningham · Turner v. Maryland · Turner v. Maryland · James Edward Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia and C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary

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

  1. “entire devotion to the interest of the client”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The further claim of the appellant that he was denied his constitutional rights because no preliminary hearing was held in his case is without merit. * * * The Virginia Statute does not require a preliminary hearing after indictment. Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24 , 129 S.E.2d 22 (1963), interpreting section 19.1-163.1 of the Code of Virginia (1960 Repl. Vol.). Nor does it appear that the appellant was in any way prejudiced by the omission of a preliminary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he assigned lawyer should confer with the client without undue delay and as often as necessary, advise him of his rights, ascertain what defenses he may have, make appropriate investigations, and allow himself enough time for reflection and preparation for 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.