Franklin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 1972
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Douglas v. People of State of California · Douglas v. California · Fambles v. State · Hill 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * When an attorney is appointed by the court to defend a person accused of crime who is unable to employ counsel, it is his duty to do so, and it is to be presumed that he will discharge his full duty in the premises. It is also to be presumed that the court, in appointing counsel for this purpose, will appoint attorneys who have sufficient skill and learning to defend the accused properly. Instances in which counsel prove unfaithful to the duty thus imposed upon them, if they occur at all, are very exceptional. Attorneys are generally men of upright character. In order to be admitted to practice, they are required to satisfy the court that they are of good moral character, as well as that they have the requisite learning.’ “And, further, ‘We think that before a court should grant a new trial upon the ground that counsel have failed to do their duty in this respect, there should be strong and convincing proof to overcome the presumption to the contrary.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. State · Frew v. State
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.