Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 Wash. App. 201 - State v. Smith

68 Wash. App. 201 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Arkansas v. Sanders · State v. Hoffman · Kearing v. Teel · Vest v. Ziaee · 113 Wash. 2d 735 - State v. Leach

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

  1. “JuCR 7.11(d) imposes [a] . . . duty on the prosecutor to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the defendant's guilt within 21 days after receipt of the notice of appeal. The appellate courts have been tolerant of failure to comply with the rule and have remanded where a finding on a necessary element of the crime was lacking and have accepted late findings after the filing of appellant's brief where no prejudice has been established. Whether primarily as a result of this tolerance or not, the fact is that there has been a wholesale failure by prosecuting attorneys to perform this obligation. The result has been an enormous waste of time and energy by defense counsel and by this court in addressing these issues.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In short, CrR 3.6 should be complied with. We will not condone any repetition of the juvenile experience. When a case comes before this court without the required findings, there will be a strong presumption that dismissal is the appropriate remedy. We do not say this court will never overlook the lack of findings and proceed to the merits, but it will only be done for compelling reasons, none of which are here present.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “far cry from the `comprehensive opinion' which has been fundamental to every case in which the court proceeded to address the merits of a . . . suppression issue in the absence of findings required by . . . CrR 3.6.”
    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.