64 Wis. 2d 24 - Phifer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably 86 Wis. 2d 459 - State v. Wollman (1979), 76 Wis. 2d 286 - In INTEREST OF DH v. State (1977)
39 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 Ungar v. Sarafite · Chandler v. Warden Fretag · Crooker v. State of California · 52 Wis. 2d 144 - Rahhal v. State · 36 Wis. 2d 584 - State v. Smith
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. However, the amendment does not concern itself with who the counsel may be or how the counsel may be selected. . . the accused's right to select his own counsel cannot be manipulated so as to obstruct the orderly procedure for trials or to interfere with the administration of justice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The length of the delay requested; (2) Whether the 'lead' counsel has associates prepared to try the case in his absence; (3) Whether other continuances had been requested and received by the defendant; (4) The convenience or inconvenience to the parties, witnesses and the court; (5) Whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons; or whether its purpose is dilatory; (6) Other relevant factors.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Proper exercise of this discretion requires a delicate balance between the defendant’s right to adequate representation of counsel at trial, and the public interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. On the one hand, a court may not insist upon expeditiousness for its own sake, but, on the other, a defendant cannot be allowed to insist upon unreasonable delay or inconvenience in the completion of his trial. What is a reasonable delay varies depending upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.”
2 later decisions 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.