State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 436 So. 2d 475 - State v. Kahey (1983), 559 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Wille (1990)
32 state decisions
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 Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · Wood v. Georgia
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The relationship between joint representation and ineffective assistance of counsel has been thoroughly examined by the United States Supreme Court in its opinions rendered in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978), and Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). State v. Marshall, 414 So.2d 684 (La.1982). In Holloway , defendant raised the issue of a conflict of interest prior to a joint trial. In this situation, the Court held that the trial judge is required `either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk [of a conflict of interest] was too remote to warrant separate counsel.' In Sullivan, the defendant did not raise the issue of conflict of interest either before and (sic) during his separate trial. Rather, the defendant ... raised the issue for the first time after his trial. In this situation, the Court held that a defendant `in order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment ... must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.' ... Recently, in State v. Marshall, supra, we held that the time at which a concern over the effects of multiple representation is raised is the determinative factor in deciding whether the rules of Holloway or Sullivan are controlling...."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Odle · State v. Wille
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.