Case Citator › Cuyler v. Sullivan

Cuyler v. Sullivan

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
446 U.S. 335
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
109 of 109
Citing cases (total)
5,318
Treatment dates
1985–2002
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Cuyler v. Sullivan has been criticized and limited: all 109 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below. The Supreme Court declined to extend Cuyler's presumed-prejudice exception beyond multiple concurrent representation to successive-representation conflicts, leaving that extension open.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court of Colorado separately criticized tension and conflicting language in Cuyler's explanation of the defendant's burden. The other reviewed opinions followed Cuyler, applied Mickens's clarification of “actual conflict,” or directed nearby adverse language at other authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,318 later cases cite Cuyler v. Sullivan; 109 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cuyler v. Sullivan?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Cuyler's presumed-prejudice rule beyond multiple concurrent representation to successive-representation conflicts, leaving the broader extension an open question.

    Mickens v. Taylor · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    It must be said, however, that the language of Sullivan itself does not clearly establish, or indeed even support, such expansive application. . . . In resolving this case on the grounds on which it was presented to us, we do not rule upon the need for the Sullivan prophylaxis in cases of successive representation. Whether Sullivan should be extended to such cases remains, as far as the jurisprudence of this Court is concerned, an open question.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Supreme Court of Colorado criticized Cuyler's explanation of the conflict defendant's burden as internally inconsistent and in tension with Holloway, although it ultimately applied Cuyler and granted relief.

    Armstrong v. People · Supreme Court of Colorado · filed

    There is some tension between the description of the defendant’s burden as stated by the majority in Cuyler and the suggestion by the majority in Holloway that a presumption of prejudice arises when a defendant establishes that an actual conflict of interest existed at trial. . . . The discussion of this issue in the majority opinion in Cuyler is itself not free of conflicting language.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cuyler v. Sullivan and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace