State v. Seifert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “While we can say that it is the inmate's problem that he finds himself without adequate resources to research and write an effective brief, the true result more likely will be that when an appellate judge reads an incomprehensible pro se brief, that judge will be forced, out of conscience, to wear two hats-that of judge and that of advocate-in order to assure the integrity of our reviewing function. [Fn. omitted.] This will also be true of our law clerks doing research and preparing bench memos, when issues and cases have not been adequately briefed. Do we have the resources to do this and is it appropriate for us to do so?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 64 Cal. App. 4th 550 - People v. Scott · 780 So. 2d 131 - Grant v. State

2. “The following persons who are financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to be represented by a public defender: * * * * * * (b) a person appealing from a conviction of a felony or a gross misdemeanor, or a person convicted of a felony or gross misdemeanor who is pursuing a postcon- viction proceeding, after the time for appeal from the judgment has expired.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State

3. “Obviously, if the State Public Defender is no longer representing the defendant, that office is not in a position to ascertain what transcripts are necessary [to raise a particular claim].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Pederson