58 Wash. App. 717 - State v. Radcliff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “sentence, the lack of written findings does not preclude appellate review if the trial court's oral ruling sets forth the facts upon which it relies). II [4, 5] We next address E.H.'s challenge to the manifest injustice disposition in this case, which is solely that the sentence is clearly excessive. To affirm a manifest injustice disposition, the appellate court must find, in part, that the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. E.J.H. · 65 Wash. App. 771 - State v. EJH

2. “[i]n determining any sentence ... [to] 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. " RCW 9.94A.370(2) (emphasis added). While our analysis is narrow and confined to the facts before us, we affirm our earlier, broader statement that the SRA's real facts doctrine "is not part of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. TC