32 Wash. App. 567 - Crape v. Mount’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2014
7 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 Fuentes v. Shevin · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · 83 Wash. 2d 80 - City of Everett v. Slade · 84 Wash. 2d 130 - State v. Matheason · State v. Mavrikas
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by any board inspector or law enforcement officer of this state upon process issued by any superior court having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure without process may be made if: "(4) The board inspector or law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the property was used or is intended to be used in violation of this chapter." (Italics ours.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The hearing shall be before the chief law enforcement officer of the seizing agency or the chief law enforcement officer's designee, . . . except that any person asserting a claim or right may remove the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction if the aggregate value of the article or articles involved is more than five hundred dollars. . . . In a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The burden of producing evidence shall be upon the person claiming to be the lawful owner or the person claiming to have the lawful right to possession of items specified in subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section. The seizing law enforcement agency shall promptly return the article or articles to the claimant upon a determination by the administrative law judge or court that the claimant is the present lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to possession thereof of items specified in subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) The following are subject to seizure and forfeiture:”
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.