Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Idaho 404 - Austin v. State

Austin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
February 1993
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1993

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

601966197019801990decided

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 Fay v. Noia · MacHibroda v. United States · New Yorker Magazine, Inc. v. Gerosa · National Theatres Corp. v. Bertha Building Corp. · 62 Cal. 2d 226 - People v. Shipman

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

  1. ““Although this court has said that a petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings is not entitled, as of right, to have an attorney appointed by the court at public expense, Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419 , 319 P.2d 475 , cert. den. 356 U.S. 941 , 78 S.Ct. 785 , 2 L.Ed.2d 816 (1956), in the case of a petition by one incarcerated on a conviction of criminal offense, where it appears that the petition is not frivolous, but presents an issue requiring a hearing, the district court should appoint counsel to represent the petitioner if he is financially unable to obtain counsel for himself, (citations.)” 422 P.2d at 74 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The trial court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff-Appellant at the hearing held herein in the District Court.””
    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.