89 Wash. 2d 118 - State v. Dougall’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 94 Wash. 2d 839 - State v. Ermert (1980), State v. Evans (2013)
2 district · 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 81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n · 70 Wash. 2d 405 - City of Seattle v. Drew · 82 Wash. 2d 794 - City of Seattle v. Pullman · 84 Wash. 2d 874 - Blondheim v. State · 50 Wash. 2d 131 - State Ex Rel. Kirschner v. Urquhart
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) If any substance is designated, rescheduled, or deleted as a controlled substance under federal law and notice thereof is given to the board the substance shall be similarly controlled under this chapter after the expiration of thirty days from publication in the Federal Register of a final order designating a substance as a controlled substance ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where, as here, the Board does not object to the federal act of designating or rescheduling a substance, it becomes controlled after 30 days by reason of the Board’s inaction or acquiescence in the final publication in the Federal Register. Once a substance has become controlled, a legislatively prescribed criminal penalty is imposed for its misuse. . Consequently, a substance that is newly designed or rescheduled as a controlled substance by publication in the Federal Register becomes the criminal law of this state without appearing in either a state statute or the state administrative code ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Procedural due process requires that citizens be given fair notice of conduct forbidden by a penal statute. . . . Although impossible standards of specificity are not required, the statutory language must convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice.”
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.