Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 Wash. App. 546 - State v. Grannis

84 Wash. App. 546 - State v. Grannis’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2014

16 state decisions

120199720002010decided

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 114 Wash. 2d 1004 - In Re Estate of Foster · State v. Cooper · Gerken v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. · Living Scriptures, Inc. v. Kudlik · 56 Wash. App. 153 - State v. Stone

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

  1. “[e]xhibition of the genitals or unclothed pubic or rectal areas of any minor, or the unclothed breast of a female minor, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[b]y itself, an exhibition is inanimate and without any purpose of its own. Necessarily, then, its purpose is the purpose of the person or persons who initiate, contribute to, or otherwise influence its occurrence. The initiator or contributor need not be the accused or the minor whose conduct is at issue. Whoever the initiator or contributor is, however, his or her purpose must be to sexually stimulate a viewer. If his or her purpose is different, the conduct will not be sexually explicit by virtue of RCW 9.68A.011(3)(e).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Here, [the count] is based on photographs showing the conduct of minor girls on a playground, and the conduct of one minor girl taking a bath. It is obvious and undisputed that none of the girls had a purpose of sexually stimulating a viewer, and there is no evidence that Grannis initiated, contributed to, or in any way influenced the girls’ conduct. Thus, the evidence does not show an exhibition of the genitals or breasts for the purpose of sexually stimulating a viewer, or that the girls engaged in “sexually explicit conduct” within the meaning of [former] RCW 9.68A.01K3)____ Nothing said herein means that the Legislature could or could not criminalize conduct of the sort at issue in this case. We hold only that it did not do so.”
    1 later decision 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.