State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2012
21 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 120 Wash. 2d 585 - State v. Greenwood · 87 Wash. 2d 870 - State v. Striker · 90 Wash. 2d 423 - State v. Peterson · 121 Wash. 2d 852 - State v. Anderson · 94 Wash. 2d 690 - State v. Carpenter
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Amenable to process” means being liable or subject to law. 25 If a defendant is not amenable to process, Striker does not apply. 26 The Court of Appeals in this case relied on State v. Lee 27 to conclude Petitioner was not amenable to process when he was outside the state. In Lee , the Court of Appeals, Division Two, concluded an out-of-state defendant was not amenable to process, even though the State knew his address in Oregon. The State made no attempt to serve a warrant on the defendant at his Oregon address. The court noted that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stewart“factually and legally incorrect” the first trial judge’s conclusion that the CrR 3.3 trial and arraignment time ran from the date of Petitioner’s Arizona arrest; and that the second judge thus erroneously relied upon that conclusion in dismissing the case because it was not tried within that time period. This Court granted review on February 15, 1996. DISCUSSION Superior Court Criminal Rule 3.3 (CrR 3.3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 3.3 (CrR 3.3), the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stewart“absent and thereby unavailable for trial” were excluded from the trial period calculations. 32 Under those cases, a defendant was considered absent and unavailable for trial only if the prosecution exercised good faith and due diligence in efforts to bring the defendant before the court. 33 The Court reasoned in Greenwood that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stewart
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.