84 Wash. App. 5 - State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably State v. Bradshaw (2004), 91 Wash. App. 367 - State v. Knowles (1998)
35 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 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · In re Disbarment of Kleindienst · Love v. United States · 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person is guilty of intimidating a judge if a person directs a threat to a judge because of a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding, or if by use of a threat directed to a judge, a person attempts to influence a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It shall be unlawful for any person to threaten to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building, any place of worship or public assembly, any governmental property, or any other building, common carrier, or structure, or any place used for human occupancy. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Avila · State v. Johnston“The Legislature's failure to amend [a criminal statute] in light of [an appellate opinion omitting an intent requirement] suggests a legislative intent to omit an intent requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bradshaw
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.