Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 F.3d 1058 - Marshall v. Taylor

Marshall v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

395 F.3d 1058 · 2005

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
3
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably 50 Cal. 4th 693 - People v. Lynch (2010), Stenson v. Lambert (2007)

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

200200520102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · McKaskle v. Wiggins · 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham · Clark v. Murphy

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

  1. “Supreme Court precedent regarding the permissible timing of a Faretta request is scarce. No Supreme Court case has directly addressed the timing of a request for self-representation. However, the holding in Faretta indirectly incorporated a timing element.... Thus, the Supreme Court incorporated the facts of Faretta into its holding. Accordingly, the holding may be read to require a court to grant a Faretta request when the request occurs “weeks before trial.” However, the holding does not define when such a request would become untimely.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[A]fter Moore , we know that Faretta clearly established some timing element, but we still do not know the precise contours of that element. At most, we know that Faretta requests made 'weeks before trial' are timely.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.