Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 Wash. 2d 9 - State v. Piche

74 Wash. 2d 9 - State v. Piche’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
12
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 289 - People v. Taylor (1979), 18 Cal. 3d 698 - People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976)

12 federal appellate · 45 state decisions — followed in 12 states

28019681970198019902000decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Gault · Kent v. United States · Haynes v. Washington

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

  1. “‘In determining whether the essentials of due process and fair treatment [are] provided ..., it is important to keep in mind the exact nature of a juvenile court transfer hearing. Such a hearing does not result in a determination of delinquency ..; does not result in a determination of guilt as may a criminal trial; and does not directly result in confinement or other punishment as may both a delinquency hearing and a criminal proceeding. In short, the transfer hearing is not an adversary proceeding. Rather, [its] sole purpose ... is to determine ‘whether best interest of the child and of society would be served by the retention of the juvenile court authority over him or whether the juvenile, under all the circumstances, should be transferred to be tried as an adult.’ [Citation] We believe that this purpose may best be effectuated by the sound exercise of the juvenile court judge’s discretion at an informal hearing, limited of course by the general requirements of due process and fair treatment, but not governed by the strict rules of procedure and evidence applicable at either a criminal trial or at a juvenile court delinquency hearing.’”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`not governed by the strict rules of procedure and evidence applicable at either a criminal trial or at a juvenile court delinquency hearing.'”
    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.