State v. Hattaway’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 669 So. 2d 364 - State v. Taylor (1996), 672 So. 2d 116 - State v. Tart (1996)
30 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article I, Sec. 13 of our state constitution guarantees the accused, at least after the initiation of adverse judicial criminal proceedings and the court's appointment of an attorney to assist him, the right to rely on counsel as the medium between himself and the state. Consequently, the state cannot, under such circumstances, obtain a waiver from the accused or otherwise communicate with him with respect to the offense that is the subject of the proceedings except through the medium of the defense counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“after the initiation of adverse judicial criminal proceedings against a defendant and subsequent to the trial court's appointment of counsel to assist him, the state violated the defendant's state constitutional right to counsel by disregarding the appointment, obtaining a waiver, and eliciting a confession from the defendant while he was without the presence or assistance of his attorney.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“any pretrial procedure occurring after the attachment of the right to counsel in which a meaningful defense or a fair trial could potentially be impaired if an uncounselled defendant were subjected to a confrontation by the state.”
2 later decisions 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.