Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 479 SW2D 486 - Ball v. State

Ball v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2000

7 state decisions

401972198019902000decided

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 · Brady v. United States · McMann v. Richardson · Rodriquez v. United States · Collins v. State

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

  1. “the judgment and sentence heretofore entered [shall] be set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court with direction to order the appellant to be brought before the court and there advised of his right to file a motion for new trial, with the assistance of counsel, and thereafter to proceed to dispose of the cause as if the jury verdict had been returned on the date that appellant shall appear before the court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he requirement of Maness that a defendant denied counsel to assist in the fifing of an appeal must demonstrate that there was error on the trial was held inconsistent with the federally protected right of an indigent defendant to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding in Maness v. Swenson, 8 th Cir., 385 F.2d 948 . See Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327 , 89 S.Ct. 1715 , 23 L.Ed.2d 340 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[ijnasmuch as a motion for new trial is a basic step in the process of perfecting an appeal in this state, Supreme Court Rules 27.20 and 28.02, V.A.M.R., there can be no doubt that the rule applied in Maness and Rodriquez extends to that stage of the proceeding.”
    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.