State v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2011
8 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 Kolender v. Lawson · 98 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. McCullum · Commonwealth v. Barud · 118 Wash. 2d 826 - City of Tacoma v. Luvene · State v. Smith
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“instruction which would have required the State to prove that, while Robbins was driving, he either had a breath alcohol concentration of .10 percent or higher or was actually impaired by alcohol. The trial court instead gave an instruction that required the State to prove Robbins had an alcohol concentration of .10 percent or higher in his breath within two hours of driving. Today, the majority opinion holds that the State need only prove the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robbins“State v. Baker, 720 A.2d 1139, 1149 (1998). Overbroad A statute is unconstitutionally overbroad if it punishes activity which is otherwise permissible. City of Tacoma v. Luvene, 118 Wash.2d 826, 839 , 827 P.2d 1374 (1992). Here the statute specifically criminalizes what is otherwise legalintoxication while not driving. See Barud, 681 A.2d at 166 (statute allowing for conviction based on postdriving BAC tests unconstitutional as it”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Robbins“declared that RCW 46.61.502(1)(a), the same statute under which he was charged in this case, was unconstitutional. He asserts, alternatively, that even if this court did not declare the statute unconstitutional in Crediford , we should either reconsider that decision and strike it down as violative of due process, or remand for a new trial because the trial court's jury instructions relieved the State of its burden of proving the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robbins
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.