108 Wash. 2d 527 - State v. Bernhard’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably 113 Wash. 2d 83 - State v. Shove (1989), 121 Wash. 2d 707 - State v. Mail (1993)
42 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 105 Wash. 2d 175 - State v. Ammons · State v. Sanwick · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 106 Wash. 2d 525 - State v. Oxborrow · 98 Wash. 2d 384 - State v. Rice
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prohibits early release absent existence of one of the statutory exceptions.11 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court lacked authority to modify Shove's sentence. The Court of Appeals relied on the following statement from one of this court's recent cases: " [T]he power to sentence a defendant to a low-security special detention center pursuant to RCW 70.48.400, implies the power to alter the sentence if the facility does not suit the defendant's needs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person who is sentenced for a felony to a term of not more than one year, and who is committed or returned to incarceration in a state facility on another felony conviction, either under the indeterminate sentencing laws, chapter 9.95 RCW, or under this chapter shall serve all terms of confinement, including a sentence of not more than one year, in a facility or institution operated, or utilized under contract, by the state, consistent with the provisions of RCW 9.94A.400. When we construe the sentencing scheme, our function is to discover and give effect to the Legislature's intent. To discover that intent, we look to the enactment as a whole, along with statutes pertaining to the same subject matter, which must be harmonized if at all possible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Linnemeyer“"(1) Ensure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history; "(2) Promote respect for the law by providing punishment which is just; "(3) Be commensurate with the punishment imposed on others committing similar offenses; "(4) Protect the public; "(5) Offer the offender an opportunity to improve him or herself; and "(6) Make frugal use of the state's resources."”
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.