Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 WASH2D 535 - State v. Moen

State v. Moen’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Ford (1999), State v. Moen (1996)

42 state decisions

270199620002010decided

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 Woodcock v. Chemical Bank · 125 Wash. 2d 570 - State v. Gentry · 125 Wash. 2d 146 - State v. Krall · State v. Hunsicker · 78 Wash. App. 758 - State v. Ryan

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

  1. “[w]hen restitution is ordered, the court shall determine the amount of restitution due at the sentencing hearing or within sixty days.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “extraordinary circumstances exist which make restitution inappropriate.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “I'm not in a position to speak on behalf of Mr. Nakamoto because I don't represent him. He's requesting full and prompt restitution. Mr. Moen does have the ability to work.... [H]e has told me in private that he wishes to compensate Mr. Nakamoto fully. The sooner he's released, the sooner he's able to do that .... We think that the process we're asking for is a rehabilitative process. Mr. Moen will be best addressed; society will be best addressed as well.”
    1 later decision 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.