79 Wash. App. 786 - State v. Rundquist’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably In Re Marriage of Littlefield (1997), State v. Rohrich (2003)
77 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 United States v. Russell · Hampton v. United States · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · Miller v. Briggs · United States v. Santana
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Washington courts have repeatedly rejected the outrageous conduct defense in cases in which police were engaged in illegal activities. Our courts have declined to find outrageous conduct where police informants engaged in acts of prostitution and attempted to recruit new prostitutes, or engaged the services of a prostitute. Our courts have also declined to find outrageous conduct where the police themselves established an elaborate operation for the purchase and sale of stolen goods or set up a phony job recruiting center and solicited the purchase of marijuana from a potential job applicant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"[t]he execution of the federal laws under our Constitution is confined primarily to the Executive Branch of the Government, subject to applicable constitutional and statutory limitations and to judicially fashioned rules to enforce those limitations."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[g]overnmental misconduct must somehow impact the defendant's own rights before it rises to the level of outrageousness that will justify dismissing a prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.