81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 district · 137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably 105 Wash. 2d 778 - Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance (1986), 126 Wash. 2d 315 - State v. Olson (1995)
2 district · 137 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1302 · 18 U.S.C. § 1304 · 39 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Roth v. United States
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Respondent's theory of retrospective jeopardy does not stand up under scrutiny for another reason. It is based on the false premise that the phrases `unfair methods of competition' and `unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce' are so vague that they deny substantive due process. "Without question, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that people be given notice of what is prohibited. If a statute fails to give fair warning, it is subject to challenge for vagueness or indefiniteness. But, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter commented, what constitutes indefiniteness is itself indefinite: "There is no such thing as `indefiniteness' in the abstract, by which the sufficiency of the requirement expressed by the term may be ascertained. The requirement is fair notice that conduct may entail punishment. But whether notice is or is not `fair' depends upon the subject matter to which it relates... . That which may appear to be too vague and even meaningless as to one subject matter may be as definite as another subject matter of legislation permits ... Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 524 , 68 S.Ct. 665, 674 , 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948), Frankfurter, J., dissenting. "`Common intelligence' is the test of what is fair warning: "[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential ”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Its pre-1974 “actions or transactions were permitted, prohibited or regulated under laws administered ... by any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” R.C.W. 19.86.170 as it existed in 1974, or 2. Its post-1974 actions or transactions were “permitted by any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” R.C.W. 19.86.170 as amended, effective July 24, 1974.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
7 later decisions 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.