State v. Bunker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In 2007, the legislature unanimously amended former RCW 26.50.110 (2006) to exorcise the arrest provision and make clear that any violation of a no-contact order restraint provision was a crime. Final H.B. Rep. on Substitute H.B. 1642, at 2, 60th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2007). Regarding the amendments, the legislature stated: The legislature finds this act necessary to restore and make clear its intent that a willful violation of a no-contact provision of a court order is a criminal offense and shall be enforced accordingly to preserve the integrity and intent of the domestic violence act. This act is not intended to broaden the scope of law enforcement power or effectuate any substantive change to any criminal provision in the Revised Code of Washington. Laws of 2007, ch. 173, § 1 (emphasis added). This legislative statement of intent leaves no doubt regarding the correct interpretation of former RCW 26.50.110(1) (2006). The nature of the former and 2007 versions of the statute are substantively the same, and both criminalize all no-contact order violations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 159 Wash. App. 1 - State v. Brown · State v. Brown

2. “[violation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its terms is [a] criminal offense under chapter 26.50 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violator to arrest. . . . You have the sole responsibility to avoid or refrain from violation [of] the order’s provisions. Only the court can change the order upon written application.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 171 Wash. 2d 847 - City of Seattle v. May

3. “if other factors, such as context and language in related statutes, indicate contrary legislative intent or if applying the rule would result in an absurd or nonsensical interpretation,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. S.M.G.