Milton v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
767 F.2d 1443 · 1985
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Taylor v. List (1989), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)
40 federal appellate · 14 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Bounds v. Smith · Holloway v. Arkansas · McKaskle v. Wiggins · United States v. Security Industrial Bank
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In summary, a defendant in jail is constitutionally entitled to conduct his own defense. If he elects to do so by rejecting the services of an attorney to conduct his defense, he cannot be confined to his jail simply to look at the four walls and appear on the day of trial to defend himself. He must be afforded reasonable access . . . [the lack of which would] render Faretta meaningless to a confined defendant.[ 30 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a defendant who chooses to represent himself does not have a due process right of access to a court maintained library, so long as he is afforded some alternative means for assistance in the preparation of his defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not determine in this case whether Bounds, 430 U.S. 817 , 97 S.Ct. 1491 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72 , which involved an unrepresented prisoner seeking collateral review of his conviction, should be interpreted as placing an affirmative duty upon the state to provide a library for the defendant who has rejected the assistance of counsel for trial. Faretta controls this case.”
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.