Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably De Rodulfa v. United States (1972), 385 So. 2d 83 - In Interest of DB (1980)
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Douglas v. People of State of California · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Scalza v. United States · Lane v. Brown
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[2] The requirement of the attorneys' oath and Canon 4 reflect a tradition deeply rooted in the common law that an attorney is an officer of the court assisting the court in the administration of justice, and that as such he has an obligation when called upon by the court to render his services for indigents in criminal cases without payment of a fee except as may be provided by statute or rule of court. This principle is so firmly established in the history of the courts and the legal profession that it may be said to be a condition under which lawyers are licensed to practice as officers of the court. ( 413 P.2d at 490 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he lawyer has consented to, and assumed, this obligation and when he is called upon to fulfill it, he cannot contend that it is a `taking of his services.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, [§ 775.5, The Code] does not purport to provide full compensation nor is it intended to permit payment of fees in such cases which would be charged to nonindigent clients. Its purpose is to insure representation of an indigent de-féndant in a criminal case on a basis which would alleviate the financial burden on individual lawyers in light of the developing law of an indigent’s right to counsel under recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this court.”
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.