State v. Atley’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Straw (2006), City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc. (2000)
4 federal appellate · 27 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 · Holloway v. Arkansas · Wood v. Georgia · United States v. Cook · United States v. Welty
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]ince the decision in Glasser [v. U.S., 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942) ], most courts have held that an attorney’s request for the appointment of separate counsel, based on his representations as an officer of the court regarding a conflict of interests, should be granted. In so holding, the courts have acknowledged and given effect to several interrelated considerations. An “attorney representing two defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial.” Second, defense attorneys have the obligation, upon discovering a conflict of interests, to advise the court at once of the problem. Finally, attorneys are officers of the court, and “when they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath.” We And these considerations persuasive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]o ascribe to Atley a motive to delay would necessarily mean that the trial court was ascribing such a motive to Weinberg and the prosecutor as well.”
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.