State v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a statutory term is undefined, the words of a statute are given their ordinary meaning, and the court may look to a dictionary for such meaning.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n · Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n

2. “`susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations,' but `a statute is not ambiguous merely because different interpretations are conceivable.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · City of Seattle v. Holifield

3. “[N]ot allowing an amendment [to the original restitution order] would severely undermine the legislature's intent. Restitution must "be based on ... actual expenses incurred" for treatment or lost wages resulting from injury. RCW 9.94A.753(3). In other words, the State is not permitted to seek restitution for likely future medical costs or lost wages. If no amendment were available after 180 days, the victim would be limited to restitution for only the first six months of treatment after sentence. Disallowing amendments after 180 days would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the restitution statute where the victim is burdened with an ongoing serious injury.”

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