State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “Pulfrey believes Moore renders void his arrest for driving while license suspended in the third degree. However, this result does not necessarily follow from our holding in Moore. But we struck down only two sections of the broader driver's license chapter. Other sections were left untouched, and these sections provide a means for suspending a license. RCW 46.20.342(1)(c), the statute that defines driving while license suspended in the third degree, lists six different reasons for the suspension that render the offense a third degree violation, only one of which is now suspect because of Moore. Thus, for Pulfrey to benefit from our opinion in Moore, he must show that his license was suspended under the statutes declared unconstitutional. The record in this case does not indicate why Pulfrey's license was suspended. He has not shown that his license was suspended under the unconstitutional statutes and therefore is not entitled to relief.... . . . . ... We do not consider Pulfrey's Moore claim since he has not shown he is entitled to relief under that decision, and affirm.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Materne · 131 Wash. App. 734 - State v. Materne

2. “so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carnahan