45 Wash. App. 590 - State v. Bernhard’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 585 - State v. Greenwood (1993), 47 Wash. App. 530 - State v. Raper (1987)
30 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 Tate v. United States · 87 Wash. 2d 870 - State v. Striker · 89 Wash. 2d 613 - State v. Young · 90 Wash. 2d 423 - State v. Peterson · 94 Wash. 2d 498 - State v. White
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.
“CrR 3.3(f) applies in juvenile court. The court shall notify the juvenile of the hearing date in accordance with CrR 3.3(f), and any party who objects to the hearing date must do so by motion within 10 days after the notice is mailed or otherwise given. The failure of a party to make a timely objection shall be a waiver of the objection to the hearing date.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Time for Arraignment and Trial. (2) Cases Filed Initially in District Court. (i) . . . A defendant not released from jail pending trial shall be brought to trial not later than 60 days after the date of arraignment [in superior court], less time elapsed in district court. A defendant released from jail. . . pending trial shall be brought to trial not later than 90 days after the date of arraignment, less time elapsed in district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" We express no opinion as to whether or under what circumstances the CrR 3.3(g)(2) exclusion involving '[p]reliminary proceedings and trial' might extend past the date of a defendant's guilty plea. The ABA standards, upon which the criminal rules are based, should be consulted in cases 'where a hiatus appears in CrR 3.3.' State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 873 , 557 P.2d 847 (1976). However, the standards are silent as to when the exclusionary period for trial on another charge should end. See 2 American Bar Ass'n, Standards for Criminal Justice, Std. 12-2 (2d ed. 1980). In State v. Peterson, 90 Wn.2d 423, 428 , 585 P.2d 66 (1978), the defendant pleaded guilty to a federal charge in March 1975 and was confined on that charge in May 1975. The court in dicta indicated the exclusionary period would extend to May 1975. However, resolution of the precise limits of the exclusionary period was unnecessary to the decision, since the speedy trial period was violated in any case." (Italics ours.)”
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.