State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 105 Wash. 2d 175 - State v. Ammons · State v. Sanwick · State v. Ford · 121 Wash. 2d 707 - State v. Mail · 112 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Herzog
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the underlying legal conclusions and determinations by which a court comes to apply a particular sentencing provision.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Murawski · State v. White“for purposes of the statute. After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals declined to reach either of these issues on the merits. [2] The appellate court noted that, under RAP 2.2(b)(6), the State generally can appeal only”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Williams“[a] sentence in a criminal case which is outside the standard range for the offense or which the state or local government believes involves a miscalculation of the standard range.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kinneman
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.