Stopher v. Conliffe’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2023
15 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 Hoskins v. Maricle · Beckham v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Cty. · Stopher v. Commonwealth · Haight v. Commonwealth · Revenue Cabinet v. O'DANIEL
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Any defending attorney operating under the provisions of this chapter is entitled to use the same state facilities for the evaluation of evidence as are available to the attorney representing the Commonwealth. If he or she considers their use impractical, the court concerned may authorize the use of private facilities to be paid for on court order from the special account of the Finance and Administration Cabinet. (2) The defending attorney may request to be heard ex parte and on the record with regard to using private facilities under subsection (1) of this section. If the defending attorney so requests, the court shall con duct the hearing ex parte and on the record. (3) Any direct expense, including the cost of a transcript or bystander’s bill of exceptions or other substitute for a transcript that is necessarily incurred in representing a needy person under this chapter, is a charge against the county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government on behalf of which the service is performed and shall be paid from the special account established in subsection (4) of this section and in accordance with procedures provided in subsection (5) of this section. However, such a charge shall not exceed the established rate charged by the Commonwealth and its agencies. (4) The consolidated local government, fiscal court of each county, or legislative body of an urban-county government shall annually appropriate twelve and a half cents ($0,125) per capita of the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted. 25”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hodge v. Coleman“clear from the use of the words in the statute [KRS 31.185] that the General Assembly intended to limit the use of funds or facilities allowed under KRS 31.185 to attorneys representing an indigent defendant at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hodge v. Coleman
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.