Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 So. 2d 388 - State v. Alexander

334 So. 2d 388 - State v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2013

8 state decisions

6019761980199020002010decided

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 State v. Edwards · State v. Wright · 326 So. 2d 820 - State v. Maduell · State v. Pratt · State v. Bailey

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

  1. “"The general import of the colloquy which took place prior to trial was that Alexander was dissatisfied with his court appointed counsel and had the representation of a retained attorney through the aid of a friend. A denial of a motion for a continuance made on the day of trial on grounds that the defendant is dissatisfied with his attorney has been held to be proper. State v. Austin, 258 La. 273 , 246 So.2d 12 (1971). "In State v. Austin, supra, we stated: `Defendant is entitled to counsel. He may hire whom he chooses. Because he is indigent, he is privileged to have the State appoint an attorney without any cost to him. To permit the accused to discharge his court-appointed counsel on the day of trial, without any showing of incompetence and without having a privately retained attorney present to take his place, would be to permit defendant to choose which lawyer the court must appoint to defend him. We are not aware of any basis in law for such a claim upon the State or upon the members of the bar.' "See also State v. Navarre, La., 289 So.2d 101 (1974), wherein the language quoted above was cited with approval." Assignment of Error No. 2 is without merit.”
    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.