Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 N.C. App. 473 - State v. Shores

102 N.C. App. 473 - State v. Shores’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2012

8 state decisions

40199120002010decided

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 McMann v. Richardson · Wheat v. United States · Logiudice v. Georgia · Cablevision Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc. · United States v. Cunningham

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. “[C]ourts have an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them. Therefore, where it is shown that an actual conflict or the potential for conflict exists, the presumption in favor of an accused’s counsel of choice will be overcome. . . . [I]t is incumbent upon a court faced with either an actual or potential conflict of interest, regarding attorney representation, to conduct an appropriate inquiry and, if need be, grant the motion for disqualification. The trial court must be given substantial latitude in granting or denying a motion for attorney disqualification.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]e have considered the fact that if [defense co-counsel] Chandler were disqualified this early in the proceedings and a pre-trial hearing determines that either [State’s witness] Amanda Durham can not testify on behalf of the State or that the attorney-client privilege prohibits Chandler from testifying, defendant will have lost his constitutional right for no good reason.”
    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.