74 Wash. 2d 828 - State v. Hardwick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. “where the law governing the case is expressed in the statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Harris · 39 Wash. App. 164 - State v. Haley

2. “No. 4 To convict the defendant Gregory Allen of the crime of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about July 10, 1981, the defendant unlawfully attempted to enter a building; (2) That the attempted entering or remaining was with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein; and (3) That the acts occurred in King County, Washington. If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. No. 6 A person commits the crime of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree when, with intent to commit that crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 101 Wash. 2d 355 - State v. Allen

3. “Under the laws of this State, the phrases “under the influence of” and “affected by”, as used in the Information herein with reference to intoxicating liquor, have the same significance, import and breadth of meaning. For the purposes of this case, the defendant may be said to have been either “under the influence of” or “affected by” intoxicating liquor, if, at the time of the alleged unlawful operation of his automobile, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt establishes that intoxicating liquor has so far affected his nervous system, brain, or muscles, so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate his car in the manner that an ordinary prudent and cautious man, in the full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would operate or drive a similar vehicle under like circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Wash. 2d 469 - State v. Engstrom