39 Wash. App. 550 - State v. Wirth’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2003
15 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 87 Wash. 2d 870 - State v. Striker · 90 Wash. 2d 423 - State v. Peterson · 94 Wash. 2d 690 - State v. Carpenter · 87 Wash. 2d 916 - State v. Williams · 91 Wash. 2d 492 - State v. Alexus
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State contends that it need make only diligent efforts given the information it has. Even were we to agree, the minimal efforts made here would not suffice. Where law enforcement officials have information which could lead readily to the person sought through standard follow-up inquiries, those leads must be pursued. To allow otherwise would permit officers to close their eyes and ears to information openly available, harming both the rights of those accused and the public interest in prompt, thorough police work.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[unavailability can be shown only if the prosecution demonstrates good faith and diligent efforts to obtain the availability of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“I confess I always have had difficulty with the concept that delay between filing an information and defendant's arrest in some way harms the defendant or society and must result in dismissal with prejudice. Our speedy trial rules are tough enough on the prosecution as it is, without making them more so. In my view a defendant should be made to prove actual prejudice from any delay before dismissal is considered. In the real world, it is nearly always the defendant who seeks to delay his day of judgment. Some strictures on the prosecuting attorney are called for, but none so drastic as described by Striker and its progeny.”
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.