102 Wash. 2d 300 - State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably 110 Wash. 2d 793 - In Re the Personal Restraint of King (1988), State v. Bryant (1988)
29 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 Simpson v. United States · 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · 92 Wash. 2d 35 - State Ex Rel. McDonald v. Whatcom County District Court · 34 Wash. App. 82 - In Re the Welfare of Hoffer · 36 Wash. App. 1 - State v. Martin
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ Martin ] interprets section [RCW 13.40.200](3)(b) as requiring any penalty of confinement to be in lieu of the restitution and community service not performed..... Had the Legislature intended the confinement penalty to be credited against the restitution and community service portions of the original disposition, it would have specifically stated "in lieu of," as it did in RCW 13.40.250(2): A monetary penalty imposed upon a juvenile under the age of sixteen who is found to have committed a traffic infraction may not exceed one hundred dollars. At the juvenile's request, the court may order performance of a number of hours of community service in lieu of a monetary penalty, at the rate of the prevailing state minimum wage per hour.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) When a respondent fails to comply with an order of restitution, community supervision, penalty assessments, or confinement of less than thirty days, the court upon motion of the prosecutor or its own motion, may modify the order after a hearing on the violation. (2) The hearing shall afford the respondent the same due process of law as would be afforded an adult probationer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[m]ake the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior”
2 later decisions 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.