State v. Mahoe’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2021
1 federal appellate · 17 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 Boyde v. California · 101 Wash. 2d 566 - State v. Petrich · State v. Arceo · State v. Ganal · State v. Cullen
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]rguments of counsel which misstate the law are subject to objection and to correction by the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Klinge · State v. SUAN“We review statutes de novo. The starting point in statutory construction is to determine the legislative intent from the language of the statute itself. Our foremost obligation when interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. We read statutory language in the context of the entire statute, and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. A rational, sensible and practicable interpretation of a statute is preferred to one which is unreasonable or impracticable. The legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality. As a general rule, penal statutes are to be strictly construed. Ambiguous penal statutes are to be construed in favor of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coelho“Based on the plain language of the statute and the historical development of the offense of burglary, . . . in order to sustain a burglary conviction, the evidence must show that the unlawful entry was effected for the purpose of committing an offense against a person or property rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Arroyo
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.