Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 Wash. 2d 224 - Quesnell v. State

83 Wash. 2d 224 - Quesnell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
9
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 87 Wash. 2d 922 - Johnson v. Morris (1976), 100 Wash. 2d 832 - Dunner v. McLaughlin (1984)

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 50 state decisions

16019741980199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Gault · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Pointer v. Texas · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois

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

  1. “"It is the likelihood of involuntary incarceration—whether for punishment as an adult for a crime, rehabilitation as a juvenile for delinquency, or treatment and training as a feebleminded or mental incompetent—which commands observance of the constitutional safeguards of due process."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Measures which subject individuals to the substantial and involuntary deprivation of their liberty contain an inescapable punitive element, and this reality is not altered by the facts that the motivations that prompt incarceration are to provide therapy or otherwise contribute to the person's well-being or reform.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Of utmost importance, and consistent with the earlier-stated duty of the guardian ad litem to actively protect the rights of his [or her] client, is the prohibition against waiver of such rights. Even if the appointment is one made after hearing and determination of incompetency, the guardian ad litem is no more permitted to waive a substantial right of the ward than is an attorney for a competent client.”
    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.