146 Wash. 2d 540 - State v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) Conditions of Release. Upon a showing that there exists a substantial danger that the accused will commit a violent crime or that the accused will seek to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise unlawfully interfere with the administration of justice, the court may impose one or more of the following conditions: (1) Prohibit the accused from approaching or communicating in any manner with particular persons or classes of persons; (2) Prohibit the accused from going to certain geographical areas or premises; (3) Prohibit the accused from possessing any dangerous weapons or firearms, or engaging in certain described activities or possessing or consuming any intoxicating liquors or drugs not prescribed to the accused; (4) Require the accused to report regularly to and remain under the supervision of an officer of the court or other person or agency; (5) Prohibit the accused from committing any violations of criminal law; (6) Require the accused to post a secured or unsecured bond, conditioned on compliance with all conditions of release. This condition may be imposed only if no less restrictive condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community or the appearance of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Schultz

2. “Ex. 6. Schultz resumed living with Sucaldito in June 1999, although both were aware that the no-contact order remained in effect. On August 10, 1999, the Everett Police Department received a 911 hang up call from the apartment that Schultz and Sucaldito shared. In a signed Everett Police Department Witness Statement, Sucaldito stated that the two had been fighting, that she had screamed for help and had tried to call 911, and that Schultz had covered her mouth, pushed her, and pulled the phone from the wall. On August 13, 1999, the State charged Schultz with”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Schultz

3. “VIOLATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NO-CONTACT ORDER (pre-conviction), committed as follows: That the defendant, on or about the 10th day of August, 1999, did wilfully violate the provisions of said order prohibiting defendant from having any contact with Ermita Sucaldito, to-wit: the defendant intentionally did assault Ermita Sucaldito, a human being; proscribed by RCW 10.99.040, a felony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Schultz