Olson v. James’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 150 · 1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2010
4 federal appellate · 16 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 Rinaldi v. Yeager · Fuller v. Oregon · James v. Strange · 323 F. Supp. 1230 - Strange v. James
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.
““[1] First, a requirement of repayment is to be imposed only upon a convicted (not an acquitted) defendant or one whose conviction is reversed on appeal. “[2] Second, a court should not order a convicted person to pay these expenses unless he is able to pay them or will be able to pay them in the future considering his financial resources and the nature of the burden that payment will impose. If a person is unlikely to be able to pay, no requirement to pay is to be imposed. “[3] Third, a convicted person on whom an obligation to repay has been imposed ought at any time be able to petition the sentencing court for remission of the payment of costs or any unpaid portion thereof. The court should have tire power to issue remittitur if payment will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or his immediate family. “[4] Fourth, if the convicted person shows that his default was not attributable to an intentional refusal to obey the order of the court or to a failure on Iris part to malee a good faith effort to make the payment, he ought not be held in contempt.” 603 F.2d at 155 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We need not speculate as to whether the statute produces a chilling effect. We need only take notice of its awesome and forbidding character to realize that it emphasizes collection first and foremost. Its fulfillment of the defendant’s right to counsel is much less than a primary purpose. A further deficiency is its lack of proceedings which would determine the financial condition of the accused and perhaps test the excessiveness of the attorney’s fee (and these fees are not modest). All of these factors combine to produce the conclusion that the statute is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.””
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.