322 Pa. Super. 71 - Commonwealth v. Egan’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
May 1994
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Ungar v. Sarafite · Morris v. Slappy · Commonwealth v. Starr
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s mere dissatisfaction with counsel does not work a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This is in accord with the law regarding continuances. The decision whether to grant a continuance is within the discretion of the court below. Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 285 Pa.Super. 464 , 427 A.2d 1380 (1981). An appellate court cannot disturb a continuance decision absent an abuse of that discretion. What would make such a request justifiable? All such requests cannot be per se justifiable. That would enable a criminal defendant to indefinitely delay his going to trial. He would simply have to announce to the court at every trial date that he was dissatisfied with his counsel and wanted a continuance to obtain new counsel. Nor, as noted above, can all such requests be considered per se unjustifiable. (322 Pa.Superior Ct. 79, 469 A.2d 190 .)”
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.