Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 Wash. App. 70 - State v. Gutierrez

58 Wash. App. 70 - State v. Gutierrez’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2013

17 state decisions

120199020002010decided

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 Bibby v. United States · 104 Wash. 2d 412 - State v. Guloy · 110 Wash. 2d 403 - State v. Kitchen · Baumann v. United States · 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway

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

  1. “); State v. Davis, 43 Wash.App. 832, 837 , 720 P.2d 454 , review denied, 106 Wash.2d 1017 (1986) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In determining any sentence, the trial court may rely on no more information than is admitted by the plea agreement, or admitted, acknowledged, or proved in a trial or at the time of sentencing. Acknowledgment includes not objecting to information stated in the presentence reports. Where the defendant disputes material facts, the court must either not consider the fact or grant an evidentiary hearing on the point. The facts shall be deemed proved at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To the extent that the judge relied on this reasoning to impose [an] exceptional sentenceQ, such reliance was improper. The framework of the SRA indicates that earned early release time is to be considered only after the offender has begun serving his sentence. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to impose a sentence outside the presumptive range based on an entirely speculative prediction of the likely behavior of an offender while in confinement.”
    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.