Armant v. Marquez’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 552 · 1985
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably United States v. Schaff (1991), 48 Cal. 3d 843 - People v. Burton (1989)
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Harrington v. California · Pennsylvania v. Mimms · Ungar v. Sarafite
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he weight given to any one [factor] may vary from case to case. At a minimum, however, in order to succeed, the appellant must show some prejudice resulting from the court's denial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fill[ed] out a form and unambiguously t[old] the court that he was aware of what he was doing”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether a defendant’s request to defend himself is a tactic to secure delay, the court may, of course, consider the effect of delay. A showing that a continuance would be required and that the resulting delay would prejudice the prosecution may be evidence of a defendant’s dilatory intent ... [WJhere [a defendant’s] pre-trial conduct had already caused substantial delay, a showing that his motion included a request for continuance would be strong evidence of a purpose to delay. The inquiry, however, does not stop there. The court must also examine the events preceding the motion, to determine whether they are consistent with a good faith assertion of the Faretta right ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.