Williams v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
618 F.2d 1021 · 1980
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably State v. Jenkins (1984), 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991)
27 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Chapman v. State of California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Estelle v. Williams
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Jacobs v. United States, 350 F.2d 571 (4th Cir.1965), vacated a judgment denying a motion for collateral relief brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . Relying on Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), we recognized that the obligation of the government to provide an indigent defendant with the assistance of an expert was firmly based upon the equal protection clause. In Jacobs we held that the obligation arises when a substantial question exists over an issue requiring expert testimony for its resolution and the defendant’s position cannot be fully developed without professional assistance. 350 F.2d at 573 . 1 The determination of the defendant’s need is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (emphasis added).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could [not] be fully developed without professional assistance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Touchet“require[s] expert testimony for its explication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Touchet
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.