Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 SC 392 - State v. Washington

State v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Monge v. California · Monge v. California · United States v. Lurz · United States v. Crawford · State v. McWee

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

  1. “1. Whether Defendant's life sentence as a repeat offender violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the United States constitution prohibiting double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment? 2. Whether Defendant's previous convictions were sufficient to bring him within the purview of S.C.Code Ann. § 17-25-45 (Supp.1998) (the repeat offender statute)? 3. Whether Defendant received adequate notice of the State's intention to seek life without parole as required by S.C.Code Ann. § 17-25-45 (Supp.1998) (the repeat offender statute)? 4. Whether the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to charge all of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-311 (Supp.1998) (the burglary, first degree statute)?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “State v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 111, 114 , 283 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1981). In 1985, section 16-11-311 replaced the prior burglary statute. The elements of common law burglary now constitute burglary, first degree under section 16-11-311(A)(3). In other words, common law burglary is legally the equivalent of burglary, first degree. [3] Since Defendant had pled guilty to common law burglary in 1982, the trial court properly ruled that this prior conviction would constitute a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There is no violence in this case. There is no weapon. This is not a nighttime burglary. This is a burglary second charge which they want to elevate to a burglary first based on his prior record. This is a classic burglary second case. He was caught red handed in the act. No violence. Total cooperation. Made a statement. Sat down. No problem. No resistance. Daylight hours. And they want you to convict him on a technicality ...”
    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.