Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 423 F.2d 880 - Benoit v. Wingo

Benoit v. Wingo’s Empirical Analysis

423 F.2d 880 · 1970

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably State v. Patton (2008), Goodwin v. Cardwell (1970)

20 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

2301970198019902000decided

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 Anders v. California · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Douglas v. People of State of California · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is no longer open to question that an indigent defendant has a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to a review of his case on appeal as a matter of right if the same right is extended to nonindigents. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 , 76 S. Ct. 585 , 100 L. Ed. 891 ; Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 , 83 S. Ct. 768 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 892 ; Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252 , 79 S. Ct. 1164 , 3 L. Ed. 2d 1209 ; Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 , 81 S. Ct. 895 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 39 ; Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U. S. 214 , 78 S. Ct. 1061 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 1269 ; United States, ex rel. Diblin, v. Follette, 418 F. 2d 408 (C. A. 2). The indigent is entitled to have counsel to assist him in his appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 , 83 S. Ct. 814 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 811 ; Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U. S. 258 , 87 S. Ct. 996 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 33 ; Schwander v. United States, 386 F. 2d 20, 24-25 (C. A. 5); United States, ex rel. Smith, v. McMann, 417 F. 2d 648 (C. A. 2); Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When the time for perfecting the appeal had either expired or was so near to expiration that appellant couldn't have been expected, on his own, to have processed the appeal.”
    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.