Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 S.W.2d 32 - King v. State

King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
January 1994
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1994

20 state decisions

100197419801990decided

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 Ainsworth v. State · Perryman v. State · Jones v. State · Lewis v. State · Wages 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellant next contends that the court improperly refused to conduct a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, in order to determine if the appellant was justified in his desire to discharge his retained attorney. “The record reveals that about mid-way through the trial the appellant filed a pro se motion requesting that he be allowed to discharge his retained attorney and employ new counsel. Neither the appellant nor his counsel made any effort to present evidence in support of this motion, nor is the court’s reason for denying it shown. “Although appellant offered no evidence, he argues that the court should have held a hearing on this matter. The record reflects that appellant and the court discussed appellant’s request, but appellant did not seek to have this discussion transcribed in the court reporter’s notes, nor is the matter preserved by bill of exception. “Appellant’s contention is without merit. Upon presenting his motion, appellant had a duty to offer evidence in support of it, and to preserve the evidence and discussions about the motion for review. This was not done. Absent this action, nothing is preserved for review. 3 ...””
    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.