Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 Wash. 2d 282 - State v. Sweet

90 Wash. 2d 282 - State v. Sweet’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 93 Wash. 2d 329 - State v. Smith (1980), 91 Wash. 2d 86 - State v. Adams (1978)

3 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

160197819801990200020102020decided

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 · McKane v. Durston · Earley v. DiCenso · 84 Wash. 2d 498 - State v. Smith · 83 Wash. 2d 594 - State v. Taylor

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

  1. “In a criminal appeal of right, knowing waiver by the defendant is required to dismiss an appeal. . . . However, there can be no presumption in favor of the waiver of the right to appeal in a criminal case. Rather, the State carries the burden of demonstrating that a convicted defendant has made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal. [8]”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Thus, in addition to showing strict compliance with CrR 7.1(b) by reading appeal rights to a defendant, the circumstances must at least reasonably give rise to an inference the defendant understood the import of the court rule and did in fact willingly and intentionally relinquish a known right. ". . . For example, if a convicted individual is clearly advised of the right to appeal and the procedure necessary to vindicate that right in the manner prescribed by CrR 7.1(b), demonstrates understanding, and is under no unfair restraint preventing vindication, failure to act can be said to be waiver — the intentional relinquishment of a known right.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““(a) After conviction, the lawyer should explain to the defendant the meaning and consequences of the court’s judgment and his right of appeal. The lawyer should give the defendant his professional judgment as to whether there are meritorious grounds for appeal and as to the probable results of an appeal. He should also explain to the defendant the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal. The decision whether to appeal must be the defendant’s own choice. “(b) The lawyer should take whatever steps are necessary to protect the defendant’s right of appeal.””
    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.