State v. LW’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3585
Relies on Reno v. Koray · 120 Wash. 2d 156 - State v. Coria · 109 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Schaaf · 98 Wash. 2d 384 - State v. Rice · 119 Wash. 2d 204 - State v. Speaks
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile the goals of the adult Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) are overwhelmingly punitive, the goals of the [Juvenile Justice Act of 1977] are “more complex,” reflecting an intent to protect community safety while also responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. The statute “attempts to tread an equatorial line somewhere midway between the poles of rehabilitation and retribution.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he fact that L.W. was placed at the shelter as part of the Royal Project is irrelevant; L.W. was not there under an order of detention, and that remains dispositive.* [ 11 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The decision to grant or deny a SSODA lies wholly within the discretion of the trial court, and [this court on appeal reviews] its decision only for abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. TEC
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.