Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 Wash. 2d 79 - State v. Neslund

103 Wash. 2d 79 - State v. Neslund’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2014

9 state decisions

401984199020002010decided

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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Johnson v. United States · Sedillo v. United States · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The special inquiry judge does not have the power to initiate the special inquiry. Instead, any public attorney, corporation counsel or city attorney who has reason to suspect crime or corruption within his jurisdiction may petition the special inquiry judge for an order commanding persons to appear before the judge, where there is reason to believe those persons may provide material testimony or evidence concerning the suspected crime or corruption. The persons summoned must answer such questions as the special inquiry judge approves, and provide evidence as the judge directs. RCW 10.27.170. Thus, the public attorney is generally in control of the special inquiry judge proceeding, although the special inquiry judge can require the public attorney to subpoena a witness who he believes to have relevant information or knowledge. RCW 10.27.140(3). Finally, the special inquiry judge does not make the ultimate decision to prosecute, since he has no power to issue indictments. RCW 10.27.150.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The primary objective of statutory construction is to carry out the intent of the Legislature, which must be determined primarily from the language of the statute itself.”
    1 later decision 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.