Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motionrespondent

Related Cases

U.S. v. Cronic, 462 U.S. 1128, 103 S.Ct. 3106 (Mem), 77 L.Ed.2d 1363

Facts

The case involved a motion from the respondent seeking to change their legal representation. The previous counsel, David W. Duncan, was discharged, and the court appointed Steven B. Duke to take over the representation.

Issue

Whether the court should grant the motion for substitution of counsel.

Rule

The court has the authority to appoint new counsel for a respondent when a motion for substitution is filed.

Analysis

In considering the motion for substitution of counsel, the court evaluated the reasons provided by the respondent for the change in representation and determined that appointing new counsel was appropriate.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion for substitution of counsel, allowing Steven B. Duke to represent the respondent.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case as their request for new counsel was granted.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States v. Blair, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 4339132

Tax Authority, Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 187 N.J. 4, 898 A.2d 512

Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F.Supp. 69

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694, 70 USLW 4720, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5776, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7259, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 518

Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 282 Cal.Rptr. 627