Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 N.E.2d 74 - Avant v. State

Avant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2012

3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

801988199020002010decided

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 Illinois v. Allen · Smith v. Crouse · United States v. Lee · Fisher v. United States · Etchieson 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A defendant who creates his own cause for mistrial presents no error.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations. We think there are at least three constitutionally permissible ways for a trial judge to handle an obstreperous defendant like Allen: (1) bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for contempt; (3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The rationale of the plain view doctrine is that if contraband is left in open view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment-or at least no search independent of the initial intrusion that gave the officers their vantage point.”
    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.