Legal Opinion

Duncan v. State

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 2009No. Docket 278652, 278858, and 278860PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MURPHY, EJ.

At its core, this case involves a claim that the named plaintiffs, along with members of the certified class, i.e., present and future indigent defendants subject to felony prosecutions in the trial courts of Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon counties, have *254been, are being, and will be denied their state and federal constitutional rights to counsel and the effective assistance of counsel, Const 1963, art 1, § 20, and US Const, Am VI, directly as a result of the court-appointed, indigent defense systems currently being employed by those counties. According to plaintiffs, even though…

2Cases cited87 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Adron Floyd v. County of KentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  2. Duncan v. StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Kuren v. Luzerne CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Mason County v. Department of Community HealthMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. Flora v. Luzerne CountyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API