Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 Wash. App. 423 - State v. Stark

66 Wash. App. 423 - State v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
5
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably 94 Wash. App. 645 - Diehl v. Mason County (1999), State v. Conte (2007)

32 state decisions

2101992200020102020decided

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 Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Shapiro v. Thompson

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

  1. “remaining terms are less vague or indefinite than they might otherwise be considered”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he exercise of prosecutorial discretion on whether to criminally charge someone involves a number of considerations, not the least of which is the public interest.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Stark misapplies the rule regarding general and specific statutes. While provisions of a more recent specific statute prevail in a conflict with a more general predecessor, this rule applies only if the statutes deal with the same subject matter and the conflict cannot be harmonized.”
    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.