Fritz v. Spalding’s Empirical Analysis
682 F.2d 782 · 1982
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably State v. Stenson (1997), 48 Cal. 3d 843 - People v. Burton (1989)
37 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Townsend v. Sain · Brewer v. Williams · Sumner v. Mata · Larry Eugene Watkins v. United States
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“could reasonably be expected to have made the motion at an earlier time.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Armant v. Marquez · Joshua v. Ylst“[A] Faretta request is timely if made before jury impanelment, `unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“before meaningful trial proceedings have commenced.”
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.