Reese v. Danforth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 state decisions

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

1. “In comparing the office of the public defender to that of county solicitor, it is apparent that the public defender’s function is more akin to the role of the privately employed attorney____ This is because the defender’s duty is to represent his clients even as against the interests of the county____ ****** The relationship between the county and the public defender is similar to that between an independent contractor and the party contracting for his services. The County has no control over the manner of representation given indigents by the defender. The nature of the work involves the attorney-client relationship and is of a type that precludes outside interference or direction by the county____ [O]nce the appointment of a public defender ... is made, his public or state function ceases and thereafter he functions purely as a private attorney____ His professional relationship with his client takes on all the obligations and protections attendant upon a private attorney-client relationship except one: the public pays his fee. In this respect, he is like that physician rendering professional services which are paid for out of public funds and, like that physician, he ought to be subject to liability for tortious conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sasinoski v. Cannon · 402 Pa. Super. 188 - Williams v. Office of the Public Defender

2. “While the availability of court-appointed counsel to represent indigents is indubitably the public business, we hold that once the appointment of a public defender in a given case is made, his public or state function ceases and thereafter he functions purely as a private attorney concerned with servicing his client. His professional rela tionship with his client takes on all the obligations and protections attendant upon a private attorney-client relationship except one: the public pays his fee. In this respect, he is like the physician rendering professional services which are paid for out of public funds and, like that physician, he ought to be subject to liability for tortious conduct. E.g., Jackson v. Kelly, 557 F.2d 735 (10th Cir.1977); US. ex rel. Fear v. Rundle, 506 F.2d 331 (3d Cir.1974).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet · 350 Pa. Super. 134 - Ei Bon Ee Baya Ghananee v. Black

3. “[T]he question of whether an individual is a public officer ... must be determined by a consideration of the nature of the service to be performed by the incumbent, and of the duties imposed upon him, and whenever it appears that those duties are of a grave and important character, involving in the proper performance of them some of the functions of government, the officer charged with them is clearly to be regarded as a public one [citation omitted]. Other elements in the problem are whether the duties are designated by statute, whether the incumbent serves for a fixed period, acts under oath, gives a bond, and the source or character of the compensation received.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 402 Pa. Super. 188 - Williams v. Office of the Public Defender · 128 Pa. Commw. 417 - Martin v. Borough of Wilkinsburg