State v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2011
20 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 Barker v. Wingo · Arizona v. Washington · United States v. Josef Perez · Smith v. United States · 103 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Campbell
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ E ]ven if the time for trial has expired, may extend the time within which trial must be held for no more than 5 days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays unless the defendant will be substantially prejudiced in his or her defense.... If the nature of the unforeseen or unavoidable circumstance continues, the court may extend the time for trial in increments of not to exceed 5 days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays unless the defendant will be substantially prejudiced in his or her defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carson“A party who objects to the date set upon the ground that it is not within the time limits prescribed by this rule must, within 10 days after the notice is mailed or otherwise given, move that the court set a trial within those time limits. Failure of a party, for any reason, to make such a motion shall be a waiver of the objection that a trial commenced on such date, or on an extension of such date properly granted pursuant to this rule, is not within the time limits prescribed by this rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carson“rule, CrR 3.3. Speedy Trial Expiration Date Petitioner argues that the speedy trial period expired on July 20, 1992. [28] He claims the day the trial court declared a mistrial, May 22, 1992, should be included in calculating the sixty-day period for beginning a trial under CrR 3.3(d)(3). [29] In making this argument, he compares CrR 3.3(c)(1) to CrR 3.3(d)(3), both of which identify sixty-day periods. CrR 3.3(c)(1) provides in relevant part”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carson
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.