94 Wash. 2d 354 - State v. Majors’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 93 - State v. Kjorsvik (1991), 99 Wash. 2d 80 - In Re the Personal Restraint of Hews (1983)
2 district · 77 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 United States v. Debrow · Keto v. United States · People v. Foster · 85 Wash. 2d 45 - State v. Cosner · Johnson v. Beto
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We see no reason why a defendant who agrees to be designated a habitual criminal should not be held to his bargain under the circumstances here presented, when he undisputedly was aware of the consequences of his waiver and there was plainly a factual basis for the plea.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“a plea of guilty does not preclude an appeal where collateral questions, such as the validity of the statute, the sufficiency of the information, the jurisdiction of the court, or the circumstances under which the plea was made, are raised.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Over a decade ago, this court recognized that a different standard of review might well be appropriate when a defendant failed to properly challenge the sufficiency of the charging document before or during trial. In State v. Majors, 94 Wash.2d 354, 358-59 , 616 P.2d 1237 (1980) (quoting Keto v. United States, 189 F.2d 247, 251 (8th Cir.1951)), this court stated as follows: The orderly administration of criminal justice demands that a defendant who is dissatisfied with the form or substance of an indictment or information filed against him shall make that known to the trial court at or before the time when sentence is imposed, ... It would create an intolerable situation if defendants, after conviction, could defer their attacks upon indictments or informations until witnesses had disappeared, statutes of limitation had run, and those charged with the duty of prosecution had died, been replaced, or had lost interest in the cases.[ [5] ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Franks · State v. Franks
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.