State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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

1. “means being liable or subject to law. [25] If a defendant is not amenable to process, Striker does not apply. [26] The Court of Appeals in this case relied on State v. Lee [27] to conclude Petitioner was not amenable to process when he was outside the state. In Lee , the Court of Appeals, Division Two, concluded an out-of-state defendant was not amenable to process, even though the State knew his address in Oregon. The State made no attempt to serve a warrant on the defendant at his Oregon address. The court noted that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stewart

2. “the first trial judge's conclusion that the CrR 3.3 trial and arraignment time ran from the date of Petitioner's Arizona arrest; and that the second judge thus erroneously relied upon that conclusion in dismissing the case because it was not tried within that time period. This Court granted review on February 15, 1996. DISCUSSION SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL RULE 3.3 (CrR 3.3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 3.3 (CrR 3.3), the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stewart

3. “[28] And even though another state may effect a Washington warrant through the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, RCW 10.88 et seq,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stewart