State v. Cochrane’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2011
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · 125 Wash. 2d 782 - State v. Vangerpen · 119 Wash. 2d 143 - State v. Johnson · State v. Quismundo · State v. Williams
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That the defendant DONALD HARER COCHRANE in King County, Washington, on or about January 9, 2009, drove a vehicle within this state and while driving had an amount of alcohol in his body sufficient to cause a measurement of his blood to register 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol within two hours after driving, as shown by analysis of the person's blood; while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; while under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug; having at least four prior offenses, as defined under RCW 46.61.5055(13)(a); Contrary to RCW 46.61.502 and 46.61.5055, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cochrane“on November 24, 1999, listing Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 11.56.020(B) as the basis for the conviction, (3) a July 12, 2000 conviction in Everett Municipal Court for a DUI arrest on June 15, 2000, listing RCW 46.61.502 as the basis for the conviction, and (4) an April 13, 2006 conviction in Seattle Municipal Court for a DUI arrest on May 11, 2002, listing SMC 11.56.020 as the basis for the conviction. In addition, the State introduced a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cochrane“and did not specify the dates for the four prior DUI convictions. Defense counsel also argued that the information cited the wrong section of the statute defining a prior offense. [1] ¶ 8 The court denied Cochrane's motion to dismiss the charges. The court ruled that whether the four prior convictions occurred”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cochrane
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.