Zarabia v. Bradshaw

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that county's practice of appointing private attorneys to represent criminal defendants regardless of attorneys’ skills violated defendants’ constitutional rights to adequate representation
• holding that Yuma County’s system of random appointment of private attorneys to represent indigent clients offended an Arizona statute and rule of criminal procedure because it failed to consider the skill-level required for each case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Carlson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2002-06-27· cited 54×
• Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2005-10-05· cited 34×
• Zuther v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2000-12-21· cited 17×
• New York County Lawyers' Ass'n v. State
  New York Supreme Court· 2002-05-03· cited 10×
• People v. Titre
  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2015-11-25· cited 10×
• New York County Lawyers' Ass'n v. Pataki
  New York Supreme Court· 2001-01-16· cited 7×
• State v. Hicks
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2009-01-12· cited 3×
• State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2016-06-29· cited 2×
• Gibson v. Theut
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2019-03-12

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Gideon v. Wainwright
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
• Douglas v. California
  Supreme Court· 1963-04-29· cited 3,330×
• State v. Anderson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1964-06-04· cited 56×
• State v. Smith
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1984-04-03· cited 44×
• Espinoza v. Martin
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1995-04-20· cited 29×
• State v. DeLuna
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-04-15· cited 27×
• State v. Valenzuela
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1985-01-31· cited 24×