113 Wash. 2d 83 - State v. Shove’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 126 Wash. 2d 388 - State v. Ritchie (1995), 120 Wash. 2d 334 - State v. McDougal (1992)
88 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 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 106 Wash. 2d 525 - State v. Oxborrow · 106 Wash. 2d 547 - State v. Armstrong · 89 Wash. 2d 394 - Jepson v. Department of Labor & Industries · 108 Wash. 2d 527 - State v. Bernhard
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the interests of justice most urgently require.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]nsure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history ". (Italics mine.) RCW 9.94A.010(1). McDougal's 450-day prison sentence is not proportionate to the seriousness of his level 2 offense or to his offender score of 0. A defendant with an offender score of 0 would face a 450-day standard range sentence only if he or she were found guilty of killing another with a car, burglarizing a home while armed with a deadly weapon, or molesting a 12-year-old child, all level 7 offenses. See RCW 9.94A.320 (vehicular homicide, first degree robbery and second degree child molestation). The Legislature has determined that McDougal's crime carries a seriousness level of only 2, not 7. His sentence, in all fairness, should reflect this fact. The basic purpose behind the SRA is to structure, but not eliminate, trial court discretion in sentencing matters. RCW 9.94A.010(1). To further this purpose, the court has "always interpreted the SRA in a manner that ensures the structuring of trial court discretion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(6) No more than the final six months of the sentence may be served in partial confinement designed to aid the offender in finding work and reestablishing himself or herself in the community;....”
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.