Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 SO3D 1119 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · Wheat v. United States · Mickens v. Taylor · 436 So. 2d 93 - Combs v. State

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

  1. “If, at any time during the representation of two or more defendants, a public defender determines that the interests of those accused are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff without conflict of interest, or that none can be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff because of a conflict of interest, then the public defender shall file a motion to withdraw and move the court to appoint other counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[B]y requiring an ethically conflicted attorney from the [Public Defender's] Office to represent the petitioner, the trial court would be denying effective assistance of counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Certiorari is an appropriate vehicle for review of an order denying a motion to withdraw in a criminal matter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.