46 Wash. App. 466 - State v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited
24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 106 Wash. 2d 547 - State v. Armstrong · State v. Bringgold · 43 Wash. App. 340 - State v. Harp · 9 Wash. App. 792 - State v. Scherck
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sentencing reform act clearly prohibits reliance on real facts that establish elements of additional crimes to go outside the presumptive range, except upon stipulation. RCW 9.94A-.370. There was no stipulation here. Defendants will be held accountable for those crimes of which they are convicted, but not for crimes the prosecutor could not, or chose not to, prove.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Either that the reasons supplied by the sentencing judge are not supported by the record which was before the judge or that those reasons do not justify a sentence outside the standard range for that offense; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Real facts that establish elements of a higher crime, a more serious crime, or additional crimes cannot be used to go outside the presumptive sentence range except upon stipulation. 2”
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.