Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Wash. 2d 492 - State v. Alexus

91 Wash. 2d 492 - State v. Alexus’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably 107 Wash. 2d 59 - State v. Pacheco (1986), 94 Wash. 2d 810 - State v. Price (1980)

34 state decisions

1801979198019902000decided

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 87 Wash. 2d 870 - State v. Striker · 90 Wash. 2d 423 - State v. Peterson · 85 Wash. 2d 29 - State v. Williams · 87 Wash. 2d 916 - State v. Williams · 19 Wash. App. 74 - State v. Hattori

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

  1. “can be shown only if the prosecution demonstrates good faith and diligent efforts to obtain the availability of the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the prosecutor made absolutely no effort to locate Alexus during the 6 months following filing of the information.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[Considerations of policy in the administration of justice, compel us to the conclusion that where, contrary to the expectation expressed in the rules, a delay has occurred between the filing of the information and the bringing of the accused before the court, CrR 3.3 must be deemed to operate from the time the information is filed.”
    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.