People v. Demarest’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2012
2 federal appellate · 3 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 Anders v. California · Pennsylvania v. Finley · People v. Hubbard · Riley v. District Court in & for Second Judicial Dist. · People v. Billips
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no indication that counsel objected to the trial court's order of March 16, 1989, appointing counsel on appeal, nor has counsel taken any action whatsoever resisting appointment until February 2, 1990. Since counsel has continued her appellate representation of defendant for some eleven months, we conclude that, under these circumstances, counsel has undertaken the appeal and cannot now be allowed to abandon representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bailey“counsel who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates that he will prosecute it to a conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bailey“satisfied first that there is arguable merit to the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bailey
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.