100 Wash. App. 776 - State v. Read’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · United States v. Dixon · Ball v. United States · Goss v. Board of Education · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The evidence in this case indicates that the elements have been met and that Mr. Read did shoot Mr. Larson and that Mr. Larson was not a participant, that Mr. Larson was shot in the chest with a pistol and with the intent beyond a reasonable doubt to inflict great bodily harm upon Mr. Larson, and that the shot was fired in commission of a crime, and that the crime being Assault in the First Degree, and that while this crime was committed, the crime of Assault in the First Degree, Mr. Read was armed with a deadly weapon, that being a firearm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Read“test, the offenses are the same in law if proof of one offense would necessarily also prove the other. Obviously, proof of first degree assault does not necessarily prove second degree murder, because a person may assault another person without actually causing death. However, second degree intentional murder requires proof of intent to cause death and actual death. RCW 9A.32.050(1)(a). First degree assault requires proof of intent to inflict great bodily harm and assault”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Read“The decision whether to admit expert testimony is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 655 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 , 111 S.Ct. 752 , 112 L.Ed.2d 772 (1991). Mr. Read appears to raise three issues regarding Dr. Rappe's testimony. First, he contends the testimony was improper opinion evidence. Opinion testimony is admissible even if it”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Read
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.