125 Wash. 2d 717 - State v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 88 Wash. App. 322 - State v. Garcia-Martinez (1997), 91 Wash. App. 554 - State v. McKenna (1998)
39 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 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 108 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Fisher · 106 Wash. 2d 547 - State v. Armstrong · 108 Wash. 2d 125 - State v. Pascal
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a factor legally supports departure from the standard sentence range, this Court employs a two-part test: first, a trial court may not base an exceptional sentence on factors necessarily considered by the Legislature in establishing the standard sentence range; second, the asserted aggravating or mitigating factor must be sufficiently substantial and compelling to distinguish the crime in question from others in the same category.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Law“To reverse a sentence which is outside the sentence range, the reviewing court must find: (a) Either that the reasons supplied by the sentencing judge are not supported by the record which was before the judge or that those reasons do not justify a sentence outside the standard range for that offense; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Whether the Legislature necessarily contemplated the inclusion of a factor in establishing the standard sentence range depends both on whether the factor is an element of the crime of which the defendant has been convicted, and on whether the factor is considered in the computation of a defendant's standard sentence range under RCW 9.94A.370(1). (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ferguson
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.