Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 Wash. 2d 949 - State v. Rutherford

63 Wash. 2d 949 - State v. Rutherford’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
4
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2011

16 state decisions

50196419701980199020002010decided

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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Haynes v. Washington · Coppedge v. United States · Draper v. Washington · Lane v. Brown

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. “Indigence is a relative term, and must be considered and measured in each case by reference to the need or service to be met or furnished. When related to the constitutional rights surrounding the furnishing of a prepaid statement of facts and transcript to a defendant in a non-frivolous criminal appeal, the term does not and cannot, in keeping with the concept of equal justice to every man, mean absolute destitution or total insolvency. Rather, it connotes a state of impoverishment or lack of resources on the part of a defendant and which, when realistically viewed in the light of every day practicalities, substantially and effectively impairs or prevents his procurement of an adequate statement of facts and transcript necessary to a complete appellate review of his claims of error. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 , 69 S.Ct. 85 , 93 L.Ed. 43 ; Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, Note 7 (concurrence per Goldberg, J.), 84 S.Ct. 424 , 11 L.Ed.2d 331 ; Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Poverty and the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice (February 25, 1963), pp. 7, 8. In judicially passing upon a contested issue of a given defendant’s ability to pay the costs of perfecting an appeal, consideration must, of necessity, revolve about and be given to the existence, nature, and extent of (a) the defendant’s separate and community assets and liabilities; (b) the defendant’s past and present occupation and earning capacity; (c) the defendant’s c”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““[T]he term does not and cannot, in keeping with the concept of equal justice to every man, mean absolute destitution or total insolvency. Rather, it connotes a state of impoverishment or lack of resources on the part of a defendant which, when realistically viewed in the light of everyday practicalities, substantially and effectually impairs or prevents his procurement of an adequate statement of facts and transcript necessary to a complete appellate review of his claims of error.” State v. Rutherford, 63 Wash. 2d 949, 953 , 389 P.2d 895, 898 (1964).”
    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.