65 Wash. App. 166 - State v. Brand’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[n]ewly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 7.6”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Wash. 2d 365 - State v. Brand · In Re Becker

2. “RCW 10.73.140 is somewhat confusing because, in establishing limitations on successive applications for PRP's, the section explicitly refers only to actions by the Court of Appeals. Although there is no express language in the statute dealing with PRP's filed in the trial court rather than in the appellate court, it is clear the same limitations apply.... Indeed, it would be irrational and indefensible to apply a different standard to applications for postconviction relief depending on whether a proceeding is filed in the appellate court or in the trial court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Becker

3. “If a person has previously filed a petition for personal restraint, the court of appeals will not consider the petition unless the person certifies that he or she has not filed a previous petition on similar grounds, and shows good cause why the petitioner did not raise the new grounds in the previous petition. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 120 Wash. 2d 365 - State v. Brand