Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 F.2d 670 - Twiford v. Peyton

Twiford v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

372 F.2d 670 · 1967

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
9
states following
July 1987
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 1987 · most notably Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney (1967), Moore v. United States (1970)

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions

480196719701980decided

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 Estes v. Texas · Turner v. Maryland · James Edward Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia and C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary · Braxton v. Peyton

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

  1. ““and a mere showing * * * (of the late time of appointment) constitutes a prima facie case of denial of effective assistance of counsel, so that the burden of proving lack of prejudice is shifted to the state.” (Emphasis supplied.) 372 F.2d at 670 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(W)hen the initial consultation between a court-appointed attorney and his client occurs only a short time before trial, ‘(n)ormally, in the absence of clear proof that no prejudice resulted, we should be obliged to treat the lawyer’s representation as inadequate and the trial as falling short of the standards of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It suffices to say that an unnecessary and unexplained delay between incarceration and the appointment of counsel gives rise to a substantial possibility of prejudice to an accused because defense witnesses may be dispersed or, if not dispersed, their recollections may fade.””
    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.