Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 NH 313 - State v. Cigic

State v. Cigic’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
9
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Mosley v. State (2009), A.L.L. v. People (2010)

24 state decisions

1501994200020102020decided

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 Anders v. California · Penson v. Ohio · McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 · Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States · Commonwealth v. Moffett

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

  1. “we take judicial notice of the files and records of this court and find no instance since the issuance of the Anders decision wherein this Court has permitted the withdrawal of appellate counsel in a criminal case on the basis the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. In any case where counsel has unsuccessfully sought to withdraw on the basis that the appeal is frivolous and without merit he can find himself in a completely intolerable situation if required to thereafter pursue an appeal. We further determine that if a criminal case on appeal is wholly frivolous, undoubtedly, less of counsel and the judiciary’s time and energy will be expended in directly considering the merits of the case in its regular and due course as contrasted with afragmented consideration of various motions, the consideration of which necessarily involves a determination of merits. On the other hand, if there is arguable merit in the appeal (a determination of which by appellate counsel is usually extremely difficult) counsel who has made a motion for withdrawal is also necessarily caught up in a conflict of interest between his duties toward his client and his duty toward the court of candor and truthfulness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Although our holding today forecloses counsel's ability to withdraw on the basis of an appeal's perceived frivolousness, it is our view that the procedure we adopt here, while different than that adopted by Anders , does not diminish a defendant's right to zealous appellate advocacy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “preserves the adversarial nature of criminal appeals, which 'is much to be preferred over [the Anders] process in which the appellate judge feels obliged to act as a lawyer and the appellate lawyer feels constrained to rule as a judge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.