48 Wash. App. 245 - State v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2009
20 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 Strickland v. Washington · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · 101 Wash. 2d 566 - State v. Petrich · 39 Wash. App. 652 - State v. Fitzgerald · 46 Wash. App. 433 - State v. Sinclair
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f a defendant could force the appointment of substitute counsel simply by expressing a desire to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, then the defendant could do so whenever he wished, for whatever reason. See [State v.] Sinclair, 46 Wn. App. [433,] 436-37[, 730 P.2d 742 (1986)] (defendant cannot force appointment of substitute counsel simply by filing complaint against current counsel). We decline to adopt such a rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n order for a statement to be admissible under ER 801 (d)(1)(h) for the purpose of counteracting a suggestion of fabrication, the statement must have been made prior to the events which gave rise to the inference of fabrication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the reasons given for the defendant's dissatisfaction, together with [the trial court's] own evaluation of the competence of existing counsel and the effect of substitution upon the scheduled proceedings.”
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.