Workman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 9902
Relies on Thompson v. State · Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Maryland Department of the Environment · 51 Md. App. 538 - Baldwin v. State · Office of the Public Defender v. State · Friedman v. Hannan
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.
“the trial court, in carrying out its role as `ultimate protector' of the Constitutional right to counsel, may appoint an attorney from the local OPD to represent the indigent individual unless an actual and unwaived or unwaivable conflict of interest would result thereby.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Elrich S.“[ajlthough Art. 27A, § 6(f), does not specify either the procedure or the standard to be employed by the court, under [Thompson ], the court must 'make its own independent determination whether a defendant is indigent and otherwise eligible to have counsel provided...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walker“Art.27A, § 6(f), contains no language indicating a legislative intent to prohibit the appointment of an attorney from the local OPD by a trial court to represent an individual that the court determines qualifies as indigent....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Elrich S.
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.