89 Wash. App. 882 - State v. Enstone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “[T]here's no question that [Enstone] pushed the victim, that she landed on her head, that the damages occurred. There is no statutory reference that I would find that this type of offense is one that constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which would make restitution inappropriate. I do not believe that foreseeability, in fact, is the test. You take your victims as you find them. That person, even though she was intoxicated, was, in fact, pushed and dragged by the defendant, who may not have known exactly what he was doing, but nevertheless there were some damages that occurred. They are properly assigned to the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Enstone · State v. Enstone

2. “[R]estitution is appropriate so long as there is a causal connection between the crime and the injuries for which compensation is sought.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Enstone · State v. Oakley

3. “A causal connection exists when, `but for' the offense committed, the loss or damages would not have occurred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Oakley · State v. Hahn