Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 Wash. App. 478 - State v. Edgley

92 Wash. App. 478 - State v. Edgley’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 55 Wash. App. 668 - State v. Taplin · 111 Wash. 2d 784 - Armstrong v. Safeco Insurance · 54 Wash. App. 295 - Puget Sound Bank v. Richardson · 95 Wash. 2d 541 - In Re the Personal Restraint of Shriner

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

  1. “RCW 10.73.160 provides for recoupment of appellate costs from a convicted defendant. "Costs" are "limited to expenses specifically incurred by the state in prosecuting or defending an appeal or collateral attack from a criminal conviction" and include the cost of a verbatim report of proceedings, clerk's papers, and fees for court appointed counsel. RCW 10.73.160(2), (3). Costs of maintaining and operating government agencies are not included. RCW 10.73.160(2). Costs are to be requested by the State pursuant to the procedures set out in RAP Title 14. RCW 10.73.160(3). An award under the statute "shall become part of the ... judgment and sentence." RCW 10.73.160(3). A defendant who is not in contumacious default may petition the court at any time for remission of the costs or any unpaid portion. RCW 10.73.160(4). If payment will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant's immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due, or modify the method of payment under RCW 10.01.170. RCW 10.73.160(4).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(3) If the court finds that a respondent has willfully violated the terms of an order pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it may impose a penalty of up to thirty days' confinement. Penalties for multiple violations occurring prior to the hearing shall not be aggregated to exceed thirty days' confinement. Regardless of the number of times a respondent is brought to court for violations of the terms of a single disposition order, the combined total number of days spent by the respondent in detention shall never exceed the maximum term to which an adult could be sentenced for the underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If the court finds that [a sentencing condition] violation has occurred, it may order the offender to be confined for a period not to exceed sixty days for each violation.”
    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.