Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 Wash. 2d 872 - State v. Scheffel

82 Wash. 2d 872 - State v. Scheffel’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
6
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 94 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably State v. Thorne (1996), 119 Wash. 2d 711 - State v. Belgarde (1992)

3 federal appellate · 94 state decisions

280197319801990200020102020decided

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 Bell v. Burson · United States v. Brown · 82 Wash. 2d 418 - Olympic Forest Products, Inc. v. Chaussee Corp. · Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways · 77 Wash. 2d 144 - Petstel, Inc. v. County of King

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

  1. “A statute is not retroactive merely because it relates to prior facts or transactions where it does not change their legal effect. It is not retroactive because some of the requisites for its actions are drawn from a time antecedent to its passage or because it fixes the status of a person for the purposes of its operation.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; and (2) To deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles on such highways to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the state, the orders of her courts and the statutorily required acts of her administrative agencies; and (3) To discourage repetition of criminal acts by individuals against the peace and dignity of the state and her political subdivisions and to impose increased and added deprivation of the privilege to operate motor vehicles upon habitual offenders who have been convicted repeatedly of violations of traffic laws.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the suspension of a driver's license is not penal in nature ... but is designed solely for the protection of the public.”
    4 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.