4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 15 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Toothman.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Toothman Anchor | green | “a detailed examination of every nuance” | 6 |
| 2 | State v. Pfannenstiel | green | “conflict of interest and divided loyalty situations can take many forms, and whether an actual conflict exists must be evaluated on the specific facts of each case.” | 3 |
| 3 | State v. Pfannenstiel | green | “an appropriate inquiry requires fully investigating (1) the basis for the defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel and (2) the facts necessary for determining if that dissatisfaction warrants appointing new counsel, that is, if the dissatisfaction is 'justifiable.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Staten | green | “a court is not required to engage in a detailed examination of every nuance of a defendant's claim of inadequacy of defense and conflict of interest.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.