Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 Wash. App. 74 - State v. Hattori

19 Wash. App. 74 - State v. Hattori’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
3
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 90 Wash. 2d 423 - State v. Peterson (1978), 121 Wash. 2d 852 - State v. Anderson (1993)

30 state decisions

15019781980199020002010decided

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 81 Wash. 2d 628 - State v. Frazier · 87 Wash. 2d 916 - State v. Williams · 4 Wash. App. 588 - State v. Newman · 11 Wash. App. 216 - State v. Smith · 17 Wash. App. 355 - State v. Edwards

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

  1. “[A] defendant cannot be considered "unavailable" for purposes of CrR 3.3(f) if his whereabouts are known and reasonable efforts are not taken to obtain his presence in the county wherein the charges are pending. If the State fails to exercise reasonable efforts in obtaining the defendant's presence, the time periods shall not "accrue anew" within the meaning of CrR 3.3(f). In determining whether the State has acted reasonably, the time necessary for transporting the defendant back to this state and administrative delays caused by the foreign jurisdiction, as well as whether the defendant waives extradition, are important factors to be considered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The apprehension in the mind of the victim of a crime committed by a defendant armed with a gun is the same whether the gun is loaded or unloaded. ... In addition, an unloaded gun can easily be loaded during the commission of the crime, and, thus, a defendant armed with an unloaded gun has the same potential for inflicting violence as a defendant armed with a loaded gun.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “absent and thereby unavailable for trial”
    2 later decisions 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.