Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 N.J. 163 - State v. Bell

State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
10
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 district · 65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Severson (2009), State v. Norman (1997)

2 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 10 states

2901982199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Sjhould the circumstances demonstrate a potential conflict of interest and a significant likelihood of prejudice, the presumption of both an actual conflict of interest and actual prejudice will arise, without the necessity of proving such prejudice. We must therefore consider the record in this case to see if there was a significant likelihood of prejudice. We find there was not.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “a conflict of interest with resulting prejudice to defendants will be presumed only when `the circumstances demonstrate a potential conflict of interest and a significant likelihood of prejudice.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “rejected extending the per se conflict approach to cases in which staff attorneys in the same public defender's office represent codefendants in the same criminal action,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.