State v. Sustaita

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “[i]t can be argued that . . . imputed disqualification[] does not apply to the public defender’s office,” but declining to reach the issue because there was no conflict necessitating withdrawal or disqualification
• “[S]omething more than a mere showing of prior representation of a victim is required before the entire public defender’s office is disqualified from representing a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State of Iowa v. Lavelle Lonelle McKinley
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2015-03-13· cited 42×
• State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2023-08-07· cited 4×
• Amended May 21, 2015 State of Iowa v. Lavelle Lonelle Mckinley
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2015-03-13

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gomez v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PINAL CTY.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1986-04-28· cited 28×
• Rodriguez v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1981-05-11· cited 22×
• Turbin v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-08-30· cited 21×
• Okeani v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-09-28· cited 19×
• State v. Harrison
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-10-02· cited 1×