104 Wash. 2d 129 - State v. Rolax’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2023
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Evitts v. Lucey · Watkins v. Oklahoma · 26 Wash. App. 430 - Streater v. White · 94 Wash. 2d 263 - State v. Daugherty
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[T]he courtnot counselthen proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right ... to appeal in all cases....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he order at issue here ended the pending petition, and ended it finally, " Dissent at 1219, does not advance the argument because it is still an interlocutory order. Although Petersen does not argue requiring him to appeal by moving for discretionary review deprives him of due process, implicit in his argument is the view that a motion for discretionary review affords him less process than he would otherwise obtain in an appeal as of right. Essentially, Petersen claims a motion for discretionary review provides him with an inferior process for seeking review of a trial court's decision. We decline to adopt such a view because as a practical matter, for meritorious claims, the discretionary review screening should present no great obstacle to obtaining review by an appellate court under RAP 2.3(b). A party seeking discretionary review has potentially four levels of scrutiny. First, a commissioner at the Court of Appeals may rule on the motion. The movant may move to modify an adverse ruling, triggering scrutiny by a panel of judges. RAP 17.7. "An appellant who makes a motion to modify pursuant to RAP 17.7 receives, as a matter of right, de novo review of the commissioner's ruling by a 3-judge panel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.