Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 Wash. App. 350 - State v. Taylor

67 Wash. App. 350 - State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
July 1999
most recently cited

2 district · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Shapiro v. Thompson · Weaver v. Graham · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Collins v. Youngblood

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

  1. “The legislature finds that sex offenders often pose a high risk of reoffense, and that law enforcement’s efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders who live within the law enforcement agency’s jurisdiction. Therefore, this state’s policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by regulating sex offenders by requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies as provided in [RCW 9A.44.130],”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is a stigma attached to one who has committed a sexual offense. It stems from the fact of conviction and is not something that can be easily concealed once the offender has been released from custody. To the extent that registration makes it likely more persons will learn of the conviction, it is unlikely that the additional dissemination -of the information brought about by registration will significantly increase the stigmatic effect over what it would be absent any registration requirement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A law violates the ex post facto clause if it: (1) is substantive, as opposed to merely procedural; (2) is retrospective (applies to events which occurred before its enactment); and (3) disadvantages the person affected by it. See Weaver v. Graham, supra at 29; Collins v. Youngblood, [497] U.S. [37], 111 L. Ed. 2d 30 , 110 S. Ct. 2715 (1990).”
    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.