Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Wash. 2d 174 - State v. Curran

116 Wash. 2d 174 - State v. Curran’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 123 Wash. 2d 260 - City of Seattle v. McCready (1994), State v. Berlin (1997)

60 state decisions

300199120002010decided

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 Schmerber v. State of California · Boyd v. United States · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · Winston v. Lee · 106 Wash. 2d 54 - State v. Gunwall

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

  1. “only if the crime of vehicular homicide could not be committed without also committing the crime of reckless driving.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he language Curran relies on refers only to the per se crime of driving while under the influence. Curran was not charged with the per se crime. RCW 46.61.506(2) specifically indicates constraints associated with the per se crime shall not limit the use of "other competent evidence" when a per se conviction is not sought. See, e.g., State v. McElroy, 553 So.2d 456, 458 (La.1989) (results of blood alcohol test not administered in accordance with statute admissible but would not give rise to presumption of intoxication). The blood alcohol evidence was properly admitted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if two conditions are met. First, each of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the offense charged. Second, the evidence in the case must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed.”
    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.