39 Wash. App. 109 - State v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 48 Wash. 2d 545 - In RE OLSEN v. Delmore · 81 Wash. 2d 95 - State v. Carroll · 95 Wash. 2d 257 - Woodson v. State · 55 Wash. 2d 469 - State v. Collins · 92 Wash. 2d 148 - State v. Langworthy
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a general and a specific statute proscribe identical conduct under identical circumstances”, the prosecutor must charge under the specific statute. Roby, 67 Wn. App. at 747-48 . But here each statute related to a different stage in the sentencing proceedings. The sentencing court had to first calculate the standard range. It then had to determine whether the multiple offense policy resulted in a standard range sentence that was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally: (3) To obtain or attempt to obtain a controlled substance, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a controlled substance, . . . (ii) by forgery or alteration of a prescription or any written order . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“attempted violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act”
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.