73 Wash. App. 789 - State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2011
14 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 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams · 108 Wash. 2d 125 - State v. Pascal · 91 Wash. 2d 704 - Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co. · 117 Wash. 2d 156 - State v. Allert
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[g]iven the Defendant's reduced involvement in the activities, as compared to Mr. Bunney, it makes more frugal use of the State's resources to impose a prison term of 36 months. A prison term of 36 months is proportionate as compared to the State's recommendation for Mr. Bunney who had substantially higher involvement in the offenses. The respect for the law by providing a punishment which is just is enhanced by a 36 month prison term because it will provide sufficient inducement to the Defendant and warning to others that such involvement, even at the Defendant's minimal level, will result in a prison term.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Korum · State v. Korum“We agree with the State that an accomplice and principal should be treated alike insofar as the determination of guilt or innocence is concerned. That does not mean, however, that minimal involvement in criminal activity may not be considered by a sentencing court in determining whether to impose a sentence below the standard range.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Korum · State v. Korum“An appellate court analyzes the appropriateness of an exceptional sentence by determining (1) whether the reasons given for it are supported by the evidence in the record under a "clearly erroneous" standard of review; (2) whether the reasons given for the exceptional sentence justify departure from the standard range as a "matter of law"; and (3) whether the exceptional sentence is clearly ... too lenient under an "abuse of discretion" standard of review.”
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.