State v. Meneses’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2019
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · United States v. Dixon · 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · 125 Wash. 2d 769 - State v. Calle · In Re Orange
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While both [crimes] required threats, each served different purposes. For intimidating a witness, the threat's purpose was to interfere with the reporting of information to the police whereas the purpose of the other [telephone harassment] is to harass or intimidate the call's recipient for any reason.[ [34] ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fuentes · State v. Fuentes“To be a threat, a statement or act must occur in a context or under such circumstances where a reasonable person would foresee that the statement or act would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fuentes“incredibly vile language, including racial slurs and descriptive obscenities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Meneses
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.