Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Wash. App. 709 - State v. Sandomingo

39 Wash. App. 709 - State v. Sandomingo’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2018

2 district · 10 state decisions

901985199020002010decided

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 Dewees v. United States · 95 Wash. 2d 616 - State v. Jones · 102 Wash. 2d 120 - State v. Rice · United States v. Alvarez-Porras · 97 Wash. 2d 873 - State v. Brooks

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

  1. “'[T]here is no constitutional right to be tried in a juvenile court.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In every case requiring an intoxication instruction, there has been substantial evidence of the effects of the defendant's drinking. E.g., State v. Rice, 102 Wn.2d 120 , 683 P.2d 199 (1984) (slurred speech, lack of coordination, inability to feel pain); State v. Brooks, 97 Wn.2d 873 , 651 P.2d 217 (1982) (lack of coordination, swallowed a spider); State v. Jones, [ 95 Wn.2d 616 , 628 P.2d 472 (1981)] (eyes glassy, speech slurred, considered drunk by arresting officers); State v. Washington, 34 Wn. App. 410 , 661 P.2d 605 (1983) (erratic driving, considered drunk by police). It is evident to us that the law stated in State v. Simmons, [ 30 Wn. App. 432 , 635 P.2d 745 (1981), review denied, 97 Wn.2d 1047 (1982)] is unchanged, and that the failure of recent opinions to mention the effect requirement was inadvertent. The evidence here did not support the requested instruction.”
    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.