Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 Wash. 2d 497 - State v. Smith

104 Wash. 2d 497 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 263 - State v. Smith (1991), State v. Dhaliwal (2003)

3 federal appellate · 89 state decisions

38019851990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[c]ounsel are permitted latitude to argue the facts in evidence and reasonable inferences”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “the defendant must show misconduct and resulting prejudice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The defendant . . . raises this issue initially on appeal. He has shown no prejudice or any lack of understanding of the charge against him. The information was not unconstitutionally vague. It will not be considered on appeal. RAP 2.5(a); Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co., 91 Wn.2d 230 , 588 P.2d 1308 (1978).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.