Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Wash. 2d 263 - State v. Smith

117 Wash. 2d 263 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
1
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

195 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn (2002), 123 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Young (1994)

195 state decisions

11801991200020102020decided

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 Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Rice v. Norman Williams Co. · 106 Wash. 2d 54 - State v. Gunwall · Chernabaeff v. Moss · 109 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Schaaf

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

  1. “"Under the rational basis test, a statute is constitutional if (1) the legislation applies alike to all persons within a designated class; (2) reasonable grounds exist for distinguishing between those who fall within the class and those who do not; and (3) the classification has a rational relationship to the purpose of the legislation. The classification must be `purely arbitrary' to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality applicable here."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'Washington courts have repeatedly construed the word”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Enacted after the Fourteenth Amendment, state privileges and immunities clauses were intended to prevent people from seeking certain privileges or benefits to the disadvantage of others. The concern was prevention of favoritism and special treatment for a few, rather than prevention of discrimination against disfavored individuals or groups.”
    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.