Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 P.2d 564 - Runnels v. State

Runnels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Coleman v. Alabama · Mempa v. Rhay · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Watson v. United States · Baker v. Kaiser

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “However, we do not mean to imply that counsel need not ever be provided. Rather, the decision to appoint counsel for these [new trial] hearings rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Trial courts should scrutinize pro se motions for new trial to determine if counsel should be furnished. If a motion appears to contain a viable or realistic basis for new trial, a defendant should be provided with counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.