49 Wash. App. 311 - State v. Lidge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We conclude that the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that the delay was neither intentional nor negligent. First, Walton's testimony, which was based solely on her review of the file, did no more than establish that her office followed its usual procedure. The fact that the prosecuting attorney's office made a determination on the legal sufficiency of the case does not answer the question of whether that determination was made negligently. Put another way, the fact that the State acted procedurally properly begs the question of whether the resulting delay was justifiable. We know of no case, and none is cited, where conclusory testimony that a case was "not sufficient" was found, standing alone, to satisfy the burden placed on the State by Calderon. [State v. Calderon, 102 Wn.2d 348 , 684 P.2d 1293 (1984).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Wash. 2d 845 - State v. Lidge

2. “failed to offer any evidence of what information it lacked on May 13 or what additional information it later received which made the case 'sufficient.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Wash. 2d 845 - State v. Lidge