Skip to main content

Young v. State

Citations

  • 102 P.3d 572
  • 120 Nev. 963
  • 120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 98
  • 2004 Nev. LEXIS 141

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the district court’s failure to conduct a more thorough inquiry into the substance of the defendant’s alleged conflict with his attorney was error
  • recognizing that the trial court must adequately inquire into the defendant's reasons for wanting to dismiss counsel
  • recognizing that the trial court must adequately 27 inquire into the defendant’s reasons for wanting to dismiss counsel
  • holding that there was \strong evidence of an irreconcilable conflict\ where defendant complained about counsel five times to the court, moved to substitute counsel twice, and counsel disobeyed a court order to visit the defendant weekly
  • finding a \significant breakdown\ in the attorney-client relationship that warranted substitution of counsel where defendant COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 14 (0
  • adopting the three-part test set forth in United States v. Moore, 159 24 F.3d 1154, 1158–59 (9th Cir.1998

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.