Clark v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.3d 386 · 1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2016
5 federal appellate · 6 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 Illinois v. Allen · Diaz v. United States · Cherek v. United States · Taylor v. United States · Adams v. Fulcomer
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor [v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 , 94 S.Ct. 194 , 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973) ] leads us inexorably to the conclusion that the imposition of a balancing test in Benavides and Beltmnr-Nunez is not constitutionally required. Consequently, our cases must be understood as an exercise of our supervisory powers over federal courts under Rule 43. As such, we are powerless to impose this balancing test on state courts in federal habeas actions. We therefore hold that the Benavides balancing test is not constitutional in scope. Because the state trial court’s continuation of the trial against Clark in absentia after a finding of voluntary absence comports with constitutional requirements as set forth by the Supreme Court in Taylor , we conclude that the district court erred by granting Clark habeas relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[H]ad an inquiry before the trial proceeded established for the record that the defendant had deliberately absented himself and that there was no reasonable probability he could be located shortly, we would be loath to say that the district [trial] court abused its discretion by failing to delay or reschedule the trial.”
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.