Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Wash. 2d 260 - State v. Luke

42 Wash. 2d 260 - State v. Luke’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
August 1992
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 1992

5 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

5019531960197019801990decided

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.

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. “Defendant is now in the identical position in which he would be either if the court had done what the statute requires or if he were to be resentenced.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever a person shall be convicted of two or more offenses before sentence has been pronounced for either, the imprisonment to which he is sentenced upon the second or other subsequent conviction shall commence at the termination of the first or other prior term or terms of imprisonment to which he is sentenced; and whenever a person while under sentence of felony shall commit another felony and be sentenced to another term of imprisonment, such latter term shall not begin until the expiration of all prior terms: Provided that whenever a person is convicted of two or more offenses set forth as separate counts in one indictment or information the court may, in pronouncing sentence, provide that sentences therefor shall run concurrently.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While this proposition may be sound, it is of no avail to this defendant. Not only is the order of the board now correct, as we construe the judgments, but we agree with the trial court in its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the board on this petition by defendant.”
    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.