Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Wash. 2d 238 - State v. Stephens

116 Wash. 2d 238 - State v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 154 Wash. 2d 118 - State v. Hughes (2005), 116 Wash. 2d 777 - State v. Batista (1991)

62 state decisions

320199120002010decided

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 · 108 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Fisher · 106 Wash. 2d 525 - State v. Oxborrow · 108 Wash. 2d 458 - State v. McAlpin · 51 Wash. App. 274 - State v. Tunell

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

  1. “"This inquiry [whether there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence] is automatically satisfied whenever the `defendant's high offender score is combined with multiple current offenses so that a standard sentence would result in "free" crimes — crimes for which there is no additional penalty.'"”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The operation of the multiple offense policy of RCW 9.94A.589 results in a presumptive sentence that is clearly too lenient in light of the purpose of this chapter, as expressed in RCW 9.94A.010.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “some extraordinarily serious harm or culpability resulting from multiple offenses ... would not otherwise be accounted for in determining the presumptive sentencing range.”
    4 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.