15 Wash. App. 716 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2016
17 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 82 Wash. 2d 584 - State v. J-R Distributors, Inc. · United States v. Wilson · 3 Wash. App. 508 - Palmer v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. · 79 Wash. 2d 512 - State v. Randecker · 14 Wash. App. 414 - State v. Harris
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e first take up the defendants’ challenge to the warrant on the ground it failed to ‘designate a magistrate to whom it shall be returned,’ .... Although defendants are correct as to this omission, defects relating to the return of a search warrant are ministerial and do not compel invalidation of the warrant or suppression of its fruits, absent a showing of prejudice by the defendant. See United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971); State v. Ronniger, 7 Or.App. 447 , 492 P.2d 298 (1971). Here the warrant was timely returned to the issuing court on August 9, 1974. The defendants demonstrate no prejudice due to the failure of compliance with the rule. Under these circumstances, there is no reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Curry“CrR 4.7(a)(1)(v) requires the prosecution to reveal the existence and nature of tangible evidence intended for use at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Boyd
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.