Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Wash. App. 146 - State v. Hurst

5 Wash. App. 146 - State v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2021

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

100197119801990200020102020decided

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 57 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. Boggs · 1 Wash. App. 614 - State v. Potts · 1 Wash. App. 963 - Rehak v. Rehak · 25 Wash. 2d 686 - State v. Fairbanks · 64 Wash. 2d 581 - State Ex Rel. O'Brien v. Towne

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.

  1. “'it can be said no reasonable man would take the view adopted'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Inappropriate disparity in sentencing is a serious problem for the criminal justice system and results in justified bitterness and lack of respect for the law by persons who have been the recipients of unequal sentences imposed out of lack of information or the failure of one court to be aware of what other courts in the same jurisdiction are imposing as sentences for similar offenses. S. Rubin, The Law of Criminal Correction 116-19 (1963); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts 23-5 (G.P.O. 1967). We cannot find, however, such an inappropriate disparity in the present sentence. Palmer’s previous record of criminal convictions reveals one prior felony conviction for burglary in the second degree on August 15, 1959. This apparent difference in degree of prior criminal involvement furnishes a rational basis for differentiation in the maximum sentences, and we find for this reason there has been no violation of Hurst’s constitutional rights . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “including the violence of the crimes committed and the possibility in fact of mitigation of the sentence in the future by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles.”
    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.