Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 Wash. App. 556 - State v. Ross

71 Wash. App. 556 - State v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
2
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 126 Wash. 2d 388 - State v. Ritchie (1995), State v. Gore (2001)

63 state decisions

3101994200020102020decided

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 North Carolina v. Alford · 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 109 Wash. 2d 947 - Allingham v. City of Seattle · 108 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Fisher

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

  1. “The framework of the SRA [Sentencing Reform Act of 1981] indicates that earned early release time is to be considered only after the offender has begun serving his sentence. See RCW 9.94A.150(1). Moreover, it would be inappropriate to impose a sentence outside the presumptive range based on an entirely speculative prediction of the likely behavior of an offender while in confinement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “of appellate review under the sentencing reform act gives courts near plenary discretion to affirm the length of an exceptional sentence, just as the trial court has all but unbridled discretion in setting the length of the sentence. This necessarily follows from the lack of a legislative definition of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) Either that the reasons supplied by the sentencing judge are not supported by the record which was before the judge or that those reasons do not justify a sentence outside the standard range for that offense; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.”
    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.