State v. Brewster’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2023
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Warden Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero · 109 Wash. 2d 222 - State v. Thomas · State v. Stenson · Warden v. Marrero
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishmentretribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.'" Brewster, 218 P.3d at 251 (quoting State v. Ward, 123 Wash.2d 488 , 869 P.2d 1062 , 1068 (1994)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Every sentence imposed for a crime specified in RCW 43.43.754 must include a fee of one hundred dollars.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No offense committed . . . previous to the time when any statutory provision shall be repealed . . . shall be affected by such repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the repealing act, and no prosecution for any offense . . . pending at the time any statutory provision shall be repealed . . . shall be affected by such repeal, but the same shall proceed in all respects, as if such provision had not been repealed, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the repealing act. Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed ... while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act, and every such amendatory or repealing statute shall be so construed as to save all criminal and penal proceedings . . . pending at the time of its enactment, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared therein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.