112 Wash. 2d 464 - State v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), State v. Ellis (1998)
1 federal appellate · 37 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3236
Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Bowen v. Johnston · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington · 109 Wash. 2d 48 - Rice v. Janovich
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] person who commits in the state any crime, in whole or in part,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he consent of the State of Washington is hereby given to the exercise by the congress of the United States of exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such tracts or parcels of land so conveyed . . . provided, That all civil process issued from the courts of this state and such criminal process as may issue under the authority of this state, against any person charged with crime in cases arising outside of said reservation, may be served and executed thereon in the same mode and manner and by the same officers as if the consent herein given had not been made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f the State makes a sufficient showing to establish that premeditation occurred in this state outside Fort Lewis before the infliction of the fatal wounds at Fort Lewis, then the State of Washington has jurisdiction to try petitioners for the crime of aggravated first degree murder.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. LJM · State v. L.J.M.
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.