Kott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2015
22 state decisions
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 Lawrence v. United States · Bowsher v. SmithKline Corp. · Cashell v. United States · 274 So. 2d 256 - Nelson v. State · McKee v. Harris
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The most important circumstance militating in favor of affirmance, however, is the fact that the appellant proceeded to trial with his court-appointed counsel, and made no additional attempt to dismiss counsel or request self-representation. Similarly, there is no evidence in the record of any conflict or lack of communica tion during the trial between appellant and his attorney that would support a finding that the appellant did not receive an adequate defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Nelson , after the defendant had requested the dismissal of appointed counsel, the motion was granted without inquiry, and the defendant was required to proceed to trial without the assistance of counsel. In Parker , the defendant made a request to dismiss counsel `for the reason that defendant desires to represent himself', but the trial court summarily dismissed the motion. Both of the above cases implicated more serious Sixth Amendment concerns than the case at bar: Nelson was given no choice other than self-representation, without any inquiry regarding his ability to defend himself, and Parker, who desired to represent himself, was never given a chance to exercise that right. The appellant at bar, however, did not request to proceed pro se, nor was he forced to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where a defendant voices a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the court should make a thorough inquiry concerning the reasons for a defendant's dissatisfaction...,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilder v. State
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.