Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 Wash. 2d 255 - State v. Mullen

66 Wash. 2d 255 - State v. Mullen’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2009

13 state decisions

6019651970198019902000decided

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 State v. Jackschitz · State v. Johnson · 63 Wash. 2d 957 - State v. Heslin · State v. Reed

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

  1. “If a bond be given and execution stayed, as provided in RCW 10.19.100, and the person for whose appearance such recognizance was given shall be produced in court before the expiration of said period of sixty days, the judge may vacate such judgment upon such terms as may be just and equitable, otherwise execution shall forthwith issue as well against the sureties in the new bond as against the judgment debtors.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The parties, or either of them, against whom such judgment may be entered in the superior or supreme courts, may stay said execution for sixty days by giving a bond with two or more sureties, to be approved by the clerk, conditioned for the payment of such judgment at the expiration of sixty days, unless the same shall be vacated before the expiration of that time.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “defendant was made available to the court ... only 21 days after his required appearance, irrespective of who was responsible, [the surety] should be held accountable, under these circumstances, only for the costs expended in apprehending and returning the defendant to the custody of the court.”
    2 later decisions 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.