Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 Wash. App. 559 - State v. Castro

32 Wash. App. 559 - State v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2012

20 state decisions

1201982199020002010decided

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 Chambers v. Mississippi · 96 Wash. 2d 591 - State v. Tharp · 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams · 84 Wash. 2d 256 - State v. Carothers · 36 Wash. 2d 367 - State v. Goebel

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.

  1. “(3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the com- ■ mission of a crime if: (a) With knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he (i) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or (ii) aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it;”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The trial court in a criminal case is required to define technical words and expressions, but not words and expressions which are of common understanding. . . . Whether words used in an instruction require definition is necessarily a matter of judgment for the trial court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “demonstrating a community of unlawful purpose at the time the act was committed.”
    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.