Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 P3D 790 - State v. AMR

State v. AMR’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2024

19 state decisions

130200220102020decided

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 Arizona v. Manypenny · United States v. Sanges · 116 Wash. 2d 917 - State v. Davison · 113 Wash. 2d 83 - State v. Shove · 121 Wash. 2d 707 - State v. Mail

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

  1. “[a]dult cases focus on whether an appeal by the State is specifically allowed by statute, court rule, or case law. Those cases turn to RCW 9.94A.585(2) and RAP 2.2(b)(6) allowing appeals of sentences `outside the standard range.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`a denial of some personal or property right, legal or equitable, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) In its dispositional order, the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the respondent. . . . (d) The court may determine the amount, terms, and conditions of the restitution including a payment plan extending up to ten years if the court determines that the respondent does not have the means to make full restitution over a shorter period. For the purposes of this section, the respondent shall remain under the court’s jurisdiction for a maximum term of ten years after respondent’s eighteenth birthday and, during this period, the restitution portion of the dispositional order may be modified as to amount, terms, and conditions at any time.”
    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.