State v. Plichta’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2024
1 federal appellate · 11 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 Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Kelekolio · 20 Cal. 3d 906 - Comden v. Superior Court · Franks v. City and County of Honolulu · State v. Richie
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Austin · State v. Abella“RULE 1.7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE. (a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and (2) each client consents after consultation. [[Image here]] RULE 1.9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: FORMER CLIENT. (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation. [[Image here]] (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client. RULE 1.10. IMPUTED DISQUALIFICATION: GENERAL RULE. (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7,1.8(c), 1.9 or 2.2. [[”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Mark“A motion to withdraw as counsel is subject to the “approval of the court,” Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 57, and the court’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See State v. Ahlo, 2 Haw.App. 462, 469 , 634 P.2d 421, 426-27 (1981) (“In this case, the proposed change came at the end of the prosecution’s case and toward the end of a long trial. We see no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusing to allow the withdrawal [of defense] counsel.... ”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Mark
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.