Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 P2D 981 - Lanier v. State

Lanier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
4
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Cooksey v. State (1974), State v. Lee (1984)

38 state decisions

230197119801990200020102020decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Fay v. Noia · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Henry v. State of Mississippi

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

  1. ““First, the attorney acts on behalf of his client, and his actions are calculated to achieve the result which his client seeks. The attorney, moreover, is the expert— not the client. Short of outright incompetence, the attorney’s actions must be considered as being in the best interests of his client. “Second, there is a strong interest in promoting the efficient administration of justice. Any rule of law which would operate to frustrate this policy would be a disservice to the courts, attorneys, and ultimately to the litigants — including criminal defendants — who appear in court. It might be feared that a rule requiring an attorney to consult with his client before the client’s rights may be waived would unduly interfere with trials. Not only would it hamper the attorney, it might force the trial judge to interrupt the proceedings whenever a waiver might be occurring in order to protect the record on appeal. If the judge did not do so, the defendant could later challenge his conviction by asserting that he had not consented to the waiver. In addition, such a procedure would distract and confuse a jury. If carried far enough, it could not only slow a trial to a snail’s pace, but it might also involve the judge in the conduct of the defense to an unacceptable degree.” Lanier v. State, 486 P.2d 981, 986-87 (Alaska 1971).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We hold that an attorney’s waiver of his client’s constitutional rights will be binding on the client — subject to established limitations — when it occurs during the trial and results from decisions made during the trial. Conversely, an attorney’s waiver of his client’s constitutional rights without his client’s consent will not be binding on the client if the waiver occurs before or after the trial or is the result of a decision made during the pretrial period, (footnotes omitted)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Normally we interpret clauses in the Arizona Constitution in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court and its interpretation of similar clauses in the United States Constitution. However, interpretation of the state constitution is, of course, our province.”
    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.