Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 487 F.2d 434 - Lofton v. Procunier

Lofton v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis

487 F.2d 434 · 1973

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
5
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably Maynard v. Meachum (1976), United States v. George H. Lustig, United States of America v. Gregory D. Pederson (1977)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

250197319801990decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Brubaker v. Dickson · Relerford v. United States · Ralph Jerome Selz v. The State of California, Richard A. McGee Director, Department of Corrections

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

  1. ““The right to choose one’s attorney is not unlimited and, if in the sound discretion of the court, the attempted exercise of choice is deemed'dilatory or otherwise subversive of orderly criminal process, the judge may compel a defendant to proceed with designated counsel.” Lofton v. Procunier, 487 F.2d 434, at 435 (9th Cir. 1973). See Nunn v. Wilson, 371 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1967).”
    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.