State v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[RCW 9.94A.345] is intended to cure any ambiguity that might have led to the Washington supreme court’s decision in State v. Cruz, Cause No. 67147-8 (October 7, 1999). A decision as to whether a prior conviction shall be included in an individual’s offender score should be determined by the law in effect on the day the current offense was committed. [RCW 9.94A.345] is also intended to clarify the applicability of statutes creating new sentencing alternatives or modifying the availability of existing alternatives.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 113 Wash. App. 691 - State v. Dean · 144 Wash. 2d 665 - State v. Smith

2. “[SSB 6182 RCW 9.94A.245] clarifies how to apply all amendments to the offender score portion of the SRA. It is both curative and expressly intended to apply retroactively.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dean · State v. Smith

3. “[a]ny sentence imposed under this chapter shall be determined in accordance with the law in effect when the current offense was committed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dean · State v. Smith