Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Wash. App. 217 - State v. Carter

56 Wash. App. 217 - State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2010

18 state decisions

801989199020002010decided

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 · Ackermann v. United States · Klapprott v. United States · Benjamin v. United States · 109 Wash. 2d 222 - State v. Thomas

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

  1. “"[T]he purpose of this section of the standards is to protect defendants from 'successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct, whether the purpose in so doing is to hedge against the risk of an unsympathetic jury at the first trial, to place a "hold” upon a person after he has been sentenced to imprisonment, or simply to harass by multiplicity of trials.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If the defendant knows before the first trial that related offenses have been charged and he makes the appropriate motion, the offenses are merely joined; if the defendant does not have this knowledge before the first trial, the defendant’s subsequent motion will bar prosecution of related offenses in every case in which the offenses would have been joined but for the prosecutor’s failure to charge or to apprise the defendant of the charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that because the prosecuting attorney was unaware of the facts constituting the related offense or did not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying this offense at the time of the first trial, or for some other reason, the ends of justice would be defeated if the motion were granted.”
    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.