Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Wash. App. 392 - State v. Mark

23 Wash. App. 392 - State v. Mark’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2003

12 state decisions

601979198019902000decided

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 Shapiro v. Thompson · Smith v. Driscoll · 60 Wash. 2d 214 - State v. Sullivan · 71 Wash. 2d 621 - State v. Boehme · 25 Wash. 2d 161 - State Ex Rel. Haugland v. Smythe

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. “Every proprietor or manager of a pharmacy shall keep readily available a suitable record of prescriptions which shall preserve for a period of not less than two years the record of every prescription dispensed at such pharmacy which shall be numbered, dated, and filed, and shall produce the same in court or before any grand jury whenever lawfully required to do so. The record shall be maintained either separately from all other records of the pharmacy or in such form that the information required is readily retrievable from ordinary business records of the pharmacy. All record-keeping requirements for controlled substances must be complied with. Such record of prescriptions shall be for confidential use in the pharmacy, only. The record of prescriptions shall be open for inspection by the board of pharmacy or any officer of the law, who is authorized to enforce chapter 18.64, 69.41, or 69.50 RCW.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “do not restrict a superior court judge's inherent power to compel the production of evidence and the appearance of witnesses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “subject to inspection for law enforcement purposes.”
    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.