Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 F.3d 975 - Carter v. Sowders

Carter v. Sowders’s Empirical Analysis

5 F.3d 975 · 1993

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
4
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 510 - People v. Davis (2005), Clemmons v. Sowders (1994)

46 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

3901993200020102020decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Cronic · Pointer v. Texas

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

  1. “Even if defense counsel could have validly waived defendant's right to be present for the conclusion of his trial, where defense counsel did not consult with defendant concerning the waiver and did not obtain defendant's consent, the waiver will not be binding on defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “circumstances could not provide the trier of fact with a 'satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “conflicts with our reading of [Johnson v.] Zerbst [ 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)]”
    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.