Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 Utah 2d 212 - Danks v. State

18 Utah 2d 212 - Danks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
February 1986
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 6 Utah 2d 126 - State v. Hines · 10 Utah 2d 162 - State v. Danks · 58 N.J. Super. 209 - State v. Rinaldi · 156 Cal. App. 2d 467 - People v. Tabb

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

  1. ““Appellant complains that the trial court erred in not appointing counsel to represent him at the hearing on his motion for a new trial. He had been convicted of the crime of robbery. “At the time of the preliminary hearing in connection with the robbery charge, appellant was represented by an attorney, Mr. Philip S. Kenny. After the preliminary hearing Mr. Danks asked Mr. Kenny to withdraw from the case. At the time of appellant’s arraignment in the District Court, the court appointed Mr. L. G. Bingham to represent him in that court. Mr. Bingham represented Mr. Danks throughout the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, and upon the jury returning a verdict of guilty, appellant then fired Mr. Bingham. At the hearing of the appellant’s motion for a new trial, he requested the District Court to appoint another attorney to represent him, which the court declined to do, but did offer to make Mr. Bingham available to assist him, which offer appellant declined. “Mr. Danks then appealed his case to this Court. Upon appeal Walter R. Ellet of Murray, Utah, represented the appellant. This Court found the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction and affirmed the lower court. Under these circumstances, appellant is in no position to complain about the absence of counsel on the hearing of his motion. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to continue to appoint counsel after the defendant in the ease has discharged assigned counsel for no apparent rea”
    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.