Neller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably State v. Cobb (1999), State v. Williams (1987)
2 federal appellate · 72 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 Summers v. State · Peyton v. French · Peyton v. Nord · Heckathorn v. Heckathorn · 73 Wash. 2d 734 - In RE SHEPPARD v. Rhay
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We would observe that as far as a juvenile is concerned, the juvenile court proceedings * * * are in addition to the hearings that follow — preliminary hearing and thereafter. Upon transfer to the district court, the juvenile is denied nothing by way of hearings and other protections that are accorded adults. If that procedure is sufficient for adults we do not understand that a juvenile has a constitutional right to more. While we can agree that a procedure which results in a child receiving ‘the worst of both worlds,’ viz., adult and juvenile, is wrong and unsupportable, we see nothing that constitutionally requires that he receive anything more or better than is accorded an adult.' In the instant situation, petitioner received all benefits to which he would have been entitled as an adult; his voluntary plea of guilty after consulting counsel, and no showing of prejudice being made, amounted to a waiver of prior failure to provide 'counsel at a preliminary hearing. No reason is apparent for concluding that the failure to provide counsel in the juvenile court law was not just as effectively waived. The juvenile court law provides for an additional determination not accorded an adult. If at the time of arraignment, complaint had been made that counsel had not been provided in juvenile court, we consider it would possibly have been error for the district court to refuse to remand to the juvenile court for a proper hearing. The same is true concerning an obj ection to failure ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We would observe that as far as a juvenile is concerned, the juvenile court proceedings under § 13-8-27 (the certification hearing), supra, are in addition to the hearings that follow — preliminary hearing and thereafter. Upon transfer to the district court, the juvenile is denied nothing by way of hearings and other protections that are accorded adults. If that procedure is sufficient for adults we do not understand that a juvenile has a constitutional right to more. * * * The juvenile court law provides for an additional determination not accorded an adult. If at the time of arraignment, complaint had been made that counsel had not been provided in juvenile court, we consider it would possibly have been error for the district court to refuse to remand to the juvenile court for a proper hearing. * * * But if no objection is voiced, what reason can be advanced to hold there was no waiver of such defect in juvenile court when it is clear that the same shortcoming in the preliminary hearing was effectively waived?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Runge v. State
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.