70 Wash. 2d 626 - State v. Wilks’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably State v. Head (1998), 37 Wash. App. 613 - State v. Fellers (1984)
25 state decisions
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 Pate v. Robinson · 62 Wash. 2d 561 - Ferree v. Doric Co. · 68 Wash. 2d 748 - State v. Russell · 69 Wash. 2d 532 - State v. Mallory · 59 Wash. 2d 338 - State v. Bell
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`treat with the elements of the crime[s] separately, indicating the factual basis for each of'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record contains no written findings by the trial court. In such case it is the duty of counsel for the prevailing party to propose such findings. Our Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 52.04W and Rule 101.20W require them. In State v. Russell, 68 Wn.2d 748, 750 , 415 P.2d 503 (1966), this court stated: Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required by RCW 4.44.050, Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 52.04W, RCW vol. 0, and RCW 10.46.070, providing that, in criminal cases, the trial shall be conducted in the same manner as civil actions. State v. Marchand, 62 Wn.2d 767 , 384 P.2d 865 (1963). The statements "has been duly convicted" and "is guilty of" used here do not meet the requirement of RCW 4.44.050 that the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated. In a criminal cause, the findings should at least treat with the elements of the crime separately, indicating the factual basis for each of these ultimate conclusions.... This court finds itself in the same position as in State v. Russell, supra , namely that we cannot consider the merits of the appeal because the record contains no findings of fact relating to the issues involved herein. As we said in State v. Mallory, 69 Wn.2d 532, 533 , 419 P.2d 324 (1966): Appellants, in their arguments in support of their appeal, refer to the oral opinion and the memorandum opinion of the trial court. These may be considered in interpreting the findings of fact and conclusions of law, but they”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Findings of fact and conclusions of law are not necessary. (B) Decision on Motions. On decisions of motions under Rules 12 or 56 or any other motion, except as provided in Rules 41 (b) (3) and 55 (b) (2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Twogood
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.