Olney v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.2d 161 · 1970
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2017
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Harrington v. California · Turner v. United States
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“particularly in narcotics cases, where the crucial issue may well be the admissibility of narcotics allegedly found in the possession of the defendant”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On this record, however, we need not decide to what extent, if at all, a defendant is entitled to be present at a pretrial hearing of this type. We have reviewed the record of the pretrial hearing and have concluded that appellant’s rights were well protected by his counsel. We fail to see how his rights could have been better protected by his presence. As this court has stated in a similar context, “[t]he presence of a defendant must bear a reasonably substantial relationship to the opportunity to defend.” Thus, while we do not decide whether appellant had a constitutional right to be present, it is clear that his absence, if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is quite clear that a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is a critical stage of the prosecution requiring the presence of counsel for the accused,”
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.