31 Wash. 2d 52 - In Re Pierce v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 26 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whenever the board of prison terms and paroles or a probation and parole officer of this state has reason to believe a convicted person has breached a condition of his parole or violated the law of any state where he may then be or the rules and regulations of the board of prison terms and paroles, any probation and parole officer of this state may cause the arrest and detention of such convicted person pending a determination, by the board whether the parole of such convicted person shall be revoked. All facts and circumstances surrounding the violation by such convicted person shall be reported to the board of prison terms and paroles by the probation and parole officer. On the basis of the .report by the probation and parole officer, or at any time unon its own discretion, the board may revise or modify the conditions of parole or order the suspension of - parole by the issuance of a written order bearing its seal which order shall be sufficient warrant for all peace officers to take into custody any convicted person who may be on parole and retain such person in their custody until arrangements can be made by the board of prison terms and paroles for his return to the institution from'which he was paroled. Any such revision or modification of the conditions of parole or the order suspending parole shall be personally served upon the parolee. All chiefs of police, marshals of cities and towns, sheriffs of counties, and all police, prison, and peace officers and constables ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 Wash. 2d 768 - January v. Porter

2. ““We concur in the views thus expressed by the California court and conclude that the states, by adoption of the act in question, have established a valid method of procuring the return of a particular class of fugitives which is independent, but not exclusive, of the regular extradition procedure. We are also of the opinion that the trial court misconstrued the act as meaning that a parolee is denied the right to resort to the writ of habeas corpus to determine whether the act has been complied with by the authorities in establishing the authority of the officer and the identity of the person to be retaken. As pointed out by the California court, a parolee detained under the compact still retains this right under the act. It is the decision of the sending state to retake the parolee that is made conclusive and not subject to review within the receiving state. “Appellee contends that even if we follow the holding in the Tenner case, supra, he should nevertheless be discharged for the reason that appellant, by first resorting to the regular method of federal extradition in the proceedings before the Governor, became bound by this election and is precluded from relying on the provisions of the interstate compact. In support of this contention, appellee relies on the following statement of the court in the Tenner case, supra: ‘Of course, when a state elects to use the method of federal extradition, and in so doing has made the demand as required by the Constitution and act of Con”

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

3. ““That duly accredited officers of a sending state may at all times enter a receiving state and there apprehend and retake any person on probation or. parole. . . . The decision of the sending state to retake a person on probation or parole shall be conclusive upon and not reviewable within the receiving state . . .” See RCW 9.95B.010, which provides: “Where supervision of a parolee or probationer is being administered by this state pursuant to RCW 9.95.270, . . . this state shall notify the compact administrator of the sending state whenever, in their view, consideration should be given to retaking or reincarceration for a parole or probation violation. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Wash. App. 475 - Ogden v. Klundt