Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 P.3d 26 - State v. Oster

State v. Oster’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Mills (2005), State v. Roswell (2008)

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

200200220102020decided

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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · State v. Smith · 42 Wash. 2d 799 - State v. Emmanuel

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

  1. “guards against unfair prejudices and guarantees that the State meets its burden.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To convict the defendant of the crime of felony violation of a court order as charged in Count I, each of the following five elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about June 7, 2015, there existed a no-contact order applicable to the defendant; (2) That the defendant knew of the existence of this order; (3) That on or about said date, the defendant knowingly violated a provision of this order; (4) That the defendant's conduct was an assault ; and (5) That the defendant's act occurred in the State of Washington.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]nstructional bifurcation with respect to criminal history has an important benefit to the accused: it constrains the prejudicial effect of prior convictions upon the jury while clearly maintaining the State's burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.