Washington Supreme Court· 10/31/1974
State v. Smith
Citations
- 527 P.2d 674
- 84 Wash. 2d 498
- 1974 Wash. LEXIS 752
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the right to post-conviction release pending appeal is procedural
- holding that the right to postconviction release pending appeal is procedural
- holding that the right to postconviction release pending appeal is procedural
- warning that some conceptions of law “once fixed, are pushed to their logical conclusions with inexorable severity”
- noting the category of “[s]ubstantive law” includes laws that regulate “punishments for violations” of other substantive law
- \[T]he promulgation of rules of procedure is an inherent attribute of the Supreme Court and an integral part of the judicial process.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Finley, Rosellini, Hunter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
103 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. GreshamWashington Supreme Court· 2012-01-05· cited 378×
- Christensen v. EllsworthWashington Supreme Court· 2007-12-06· cited 223×
- Westerman v. CaryWashington Supreme Court· 1995-04-28· cited 188×
- State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court· 1997-02-06· cited 164×
- In re the Marriage of LeslieCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1998-04-13· cited 109×
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical CenterWashington Supreme Court· 2009-09-17· cited 108×
- State v. BlilieWashington Supreme Court· 1997-07-03· cited 106×
- State v. RobinsonWashington Supreme Court· 2005-02-24· cited 103×
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PSWashington Supreme Court· 2009-09-17· cited 101×
- State v. FramptonWashington Supreme Court· 1981-04-16· cited 97×
- State v. SaintcalleWashington Supreme Court· 2013-08-01· cited 96×
- State v. TempletonWashington Supreme Court· 2002-12-19· cited 83×
- State v. SweetWashington Supreme Court· 1978-07-13· cited 74×
- State v. FitzsimmonsWashington Supreme Court· 1980-12-18· cited 72×
- State v. EdwardsWashington Supreme Court· 1980-08-21· cited 69×
- State v. ByersWashington Supreme Court· 1977-01-06· cited 66×
- Emwright v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1981-12-10· cited 64×
- State v. SchulzeWashington Supreme Court· 1991-01-10· cited 60×
- City of Fircrest v. JensenWashington Supreme Court· 2006-10-05· cited 59×
- State v. WadsworthWashington Supreme Court· 2000-01-13· cited 56×
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1959-08-20· cited 601×
- Bernhardt v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1974-01-09· cited 182×
- State v. RoyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1936-07-21· cited 148×
- In Re Florida Rules of Criminal ProcedureSupreme Court of Florida· 1973-01-29· cited 102×
- Stender v. Twin City Foods, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1973-05-17· cited 98×
- Sigman v. Stevens-Norton, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1967-03-30· cited 62×
- R. E. W. Construction Co. v. District Court of the Third Judicial DistrictIdaho Supreme Court· 1965-03-26· cited 52×
- Sylvester v. ImhoffWashington Supreme Court· 1972-12-07· cited 50×
- In Re Appeal of DattiloSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1950-03-07· cited 48×
- Burton v. MayerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1938-06-16· cited 30×
- Mayo v. MayoWashington Supreme Court· 1968-12-13· cited 28×
- Noah v. MontfordWashington Supreme Court· 1969-12-31· cited 26×
- In Re ScaggsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1956-11-30· cited 26×
- State v. HagaWashington Supreme Court· 1972-12-21· cited 23×
- Dodd v. PolackWashington Supreme Court· 1964-02-13· cited 15×
- Braden v. LadyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1955-03-18· cited 13×
- State v. HeltonWyoming Supreme Court· 1953-09-22· cited 11×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.