3 Wash. App. 483 - State v. Hennings’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 684 So. 2d 736 - Chicone v. State (1996), 96 Wash. 2d 373 - State v. Cleppe (1981)
25 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 Morissette v. United States · 70 Wash. 2d 27 - State v. Morris · 57 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. Boggs · 78 Wash. 2d 276 - State v. Turner · State v. Gottfreedson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not the only way to express scienter. See State v. Stewart, 73 Wn.2d 701 , 440 P.2d 815 (1968). In State v. Hennings, 3 Wn. App. 483, 489 , 475 P.2d 926 (1970), the court stated: This basic ingredient or element of most crimes has not always been clearly conceived. It is variously called”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Accordingly, unless the statute expressly eliminates the element of intent or design or defines the kinds of offenses which, by their very nature, are classified judicially as mala prohibita, the ingredients of intent, design and purpose should be deemed indispensable to a proof of guilt. To hold otherwise, would make anyone criminally liable who accidentally burned or walked upon the flag in public or unintentionally or accidentally committed some other act toward it which, if intent were present, would clearly constitute a defacing or defilement or a holding up to contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Waterman“It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this chapter.”
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.