64 Wash. App. 205 - State v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The majority opinion does not explain how a judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court gains knowledge that the notice of appearance has been filed. The opinion appears to take some comfort in the fact that a copy of the notice of the appearance was served on the prosecutor's office. However, there is no agency relationship between the prosecutor and the superior court. Thus, there is no basis on which we can say that knowledge of the prosecutor is somehow imputed to the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Wash. 2d 165 - State v. Hackett

2. “The trial judge is responsible to insure a trial within the time limit set by the rules. CrR 3.3(a). The purpose of CrR 3.3(d)(2) is to insure that the judge has the information to discharge that responsibility. It insures that the trial judge is entitled to actually know when the defendant is available, and is entitled to have the knowledge "on the record", so the matter [cannot] come into controversy later on.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Wash. 2d 165 - State v. Hackett

3. “, so the matter [cannot] come into controversy later on. The Johnson court concluded that in the context of this rule, made known to the court means made known to the judge, not to a court file. 10 This conclusion is congruent with the use of the word”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Wash. 2d 165 - State v. Hackett