62 Wash. App. 462 - State v. Bohannon’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 122 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Halstien (1993), State v. Chester (1997)
28 state decisions
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 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · 111 Wash. 2d 22 - City of Seattle v. Eze · 109 Wash. 2d 796 - O'DAY v. King County · 110 Wash. 2d 183 - State v. Brayman · 109 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. Pelkey
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals; (b) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object; (c) Masturbation; (d) Sadomasochistic abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; (e) Exhibition of the genitals or unclothed pubic or rectal areas of any minor, or the unclothed breast of a female minor, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; (f) Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; and (g) Touching of a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or breast area for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bahl“any person of common understanding would know that causing photographs to be taken of a nude 16-year-old girl would fall within the proscription of RCW 9.68A.040(1)(b) and.011(3)(e).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DH
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.