State v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “A conviction for a violation of RCW 46.61.5249 [negligent driving-first degree], 46.61.500 [reckless driving], or 9A.36.050 [reckless endangerment] or an equivalent local ordinance, if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.502 [driving under the influence] or 46.61.504 [physical control of vehicle under the influence], or an equivalent local ordinance, or of RCW 46.61.520 [vehicular homicide] or 46.61.522 [vehicular assault].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Walla Walla v. Greene · City of Walla Walla v. Greene

2. “because the statute does not require any proof of the charge of DUI, it fails to set the minimum constitutional standard required for criminal conviction. That standard is for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 Wash. 2d 880 - State v. Wu · City of Walla Walla v. Greene

3. “the effect ofthe statute is to elevate a prior reckless driving conviction to a DUI conviction without any proof. This is so because the mandatory enhancement applies only to those prior reckless driving convictions where the charge, but not the conviction, was DUI.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 Wash. 2d 880 - State v. Wu