Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Wash. 2d 719 - Harbert v. State

85 Wash. 2d 719 - Harbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
6
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 87 Wash. 2d 922 - Johnson v. Morris (1976), In re Ralph M. (1989)

3 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

22019751980199020002010decided

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 California v. Green · Kent v. United States · Dutton v. Evans · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania · Goss v. Board of Education

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

  1. “Such consent is of no value. Because of his minority, appellant could repudiate it upon reaching majority. Furthermore, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In determining whether the essentials of due process and fair treatment were provided in the instant case, 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a waiver order must be accompanied by a statement of the. reasons for the waiver order of sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.”
    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.