84 Wash. 2d 836 - State v. Rolax’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 96 Wash. 2d 847 - In Re the Personal Restraint of James (1982), Keeter v. State (2002)
29 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 Commonwealth v. Mosteller · State v. Wynn · 70 Wash. 2d 649 - State v. Rhinehart · State v. Powell · People v. Smallwood
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a defendant is convicted solely on the testimony of the now recanting witness, this court has squarely held that it is an abuse of discretion not to grant a new trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Petition. A petition for post-conviction relief may be filed by a person under any disability resulting from a sentence or order of a court who claims a right to relief upon the ground that such disability was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of the State of Washington or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Such petition shall be directed to the chief judge of the Court of Appeals in the district in which the court that imposed the sentence or order is located and shall be filed on a standard form approved by the Supreme Court and appearing as section (j) of this rule. (b) Prompt Hearing. If the petition appears to have any basis in fact or law, or is not on its face frivolous, the chief judge shall cause the petition to be transmitted to the superior court in which the petitioner was originally tried for a prompt hearing on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. (c) Hearing Judge. The hearing on the petition in the superior court may be before any judge except the judge who imposed the sentence or other order, unless the petitioner assents to a hearing before such judge. (d) Purpose of Hearing. The purpose of the hearing will be to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to release or other appropriate relief. The rules of evidence applicable at trial shall be followed at this hearing. (e) Right to Counsel. The petitioner may be represented by counsel at such hearing, and where the court finds that the petitioner is indi”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“After a hearing on the merits, [the Superior Court] shall determine whether the testimony was, in fact, perjured and, if so, whether the jury's verdict of guilty was likely to be influenced thereby.”
2 later decisions 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.