995 So. 2d 11 - State Ex Rel. Da’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For the above reasons, we remand this case with instructions that the city court conduct an evidentiary hearing within twenty days of this date to determine whether D.A. and D.J. were represented by the same attorney at the disposition hearing, and, if so, whether that attorney labored under an actual conflict of interest. The trial court is further ordered to prepare and lodge with this court an appellate record containing the transcript of the above-referenced evidentiary hearing within ten days of the hearing. Once this record is lodged with this court, the State and the Juvenile will be given the opportunity to file briefs should either party wish to raise any issues arising from the hearing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 So. 3d 358 - In Interest of Da · 999 So. 2d 359 - In the Interest of Da

2. “Courts have relegated conflict of counsel issues to post-conviction relief when the record is insufficient to address the issue. See State v. MM., 00-1296 (La. App. 3 Cir. 8/29/01), 802 So.2d 43 , writ denied, 01-3370 (La.10/4/02), 826 So.2d 1121 ; State v. Griffin, 02-1341 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03) , 839 So.2d 1148 ; State v. Anderson, 29,282 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/18/97), 697 So.2d 651 . ( Griffin and Anderson concerned ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on conflict issues). However, in other cases, courts have felt that the interest of justice and judicial economy would be better served by remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing so that the issue could be resolved promptly. See State v. Lee, 00-183 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01) , 788 So.2d 452 , writ denied, 00-1611 (La.3/30/01), 788 So.2d 442 , and State v. Lemon, 29,587, 29,588 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/20/97), 698 So.2d 1057 . Since this is a juvenile case, and in the interest of justice, this court will remand the case for an evidentiary hearing as opposed to relegating the issue to post-conviction relief proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 So. 3d 1009 - State v. As