State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2024
2 federal appellate · 19 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 Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · 105 Wash. 2d 175 - State v. Ammons · State v. Sanwick · 58 Cal. 2d 23 - Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman · 99 Wash. 2d 80 - In Re the Personal Restraint of Hews
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No petition or motion for collateral attack on a judgment and sentence in a criminal case may be filed more than one year after the judgment becomes final if the judgment and sentence is valid on its face and was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. ... For the purposes of this section, “collateral attack” means any form of postconviction relief other than a direct appeal. . . including] ... a motion to withdraw guilty plea . . . , [18]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“CR 5 shall govern service and filing of written motions (except those heard ex parte) in criminal causes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not apply to a petition or motion that is based solely on one or more of the following grounds: (1) Newly discovered evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition or motion; (2) The statute that the defendant was convicted of violating was unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant’s conduct; (3) The conviction was barred by double jeopardy under Amendment V of the United States Constitution or Article I, section 9 of the state Constitution; (4) The defendant pled not guilty and the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the conviction; (5) The sentence imposed was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction; or (6) There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.