State v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · 127 Wash. 2d 322 - State v. McFarland · Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Schoonover
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appellate courts will generally not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Was there an apparent motive for declarant to lie? 2. What was the declarant's general character? 3. Did more than one witness hear declarant's statement? 4. Was the statement made spontaneously? 5. Did the timing of the statements and the relationship between declarant and witness suggest trustworthiness? 6. Does the statement contain an express assertion of past facts? 7. Did the declarant have personal knowledge of the identity and role of the crime's other participants? 8. Was the declarant's statement based upon faulty recollection? 9. Was the statement made under circumstances that provide reason to believe the declarant misrepresented defendant's involvement in the crime?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roberts
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.