Escobar v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Appellant's counsel has an obligation to their non-English speaking client to determine whether the client understands the proceedings
• holding that Appellant’s counsel has an obligation to their non-English speaking client to determine whether the client understands the proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Viliborghi v. State of Arizona
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1935-04-01· cited 29×
• State v. Kabinto
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1971-01-27· cited 5×
• In re MH 2007-001895
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-02-10· cited 4×
• In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-02-10· cited 1×
• Lasater v. State of Arizona
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1938-07-05· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Cronin
  California Supreme Court· 1867-07-01· cited 96×
• Republic of Hawaii v. Nenchiro
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1899-11-17· cited 27×
• Powell v. State
  Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1905-02-25· cited 14×
• Rodriquez v. Territory of Arizona
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1912-07-15· cited 5×
• The King v. Ah Har
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1888-07-15· cited 4×