Battle v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.2d 701 · 1990
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission · Hanil Bank v. Michelman · Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim · Tichnell v. Maryland
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court must decide ... whether the nature of the litigation will make the appointment of counsel of benefit to the litigant and the court.... Several factors should influence the court’s decision, including the pro se litigant’s ability to investigate facts and present claims and the complexity of the factual and legal issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Groose
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.