Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Wash. 2d 301 - State v. Wanrow

91 Wash. 2d 301 - State v. Wanrow’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
8
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably 92 Wash. 2d 671 - State v. Johnson (1979), 514 So. 2d 295 - Faraga v. State (1987)

4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

300197819801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257

Relies on Lockett v. Ohio · Frontiero v. Richardson · Hicks v. Miranda · 70 Cal. 2d 522 - People v. Ireland · American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar

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

  1. “Nor does it violate petitioner's right to equal protection that the prosecutor may choose to enforce one criminal statute against her and not [the other]. The discretion vested in the prosecutor to selectively enforce criminal statutes is not unconstitutional if not based on unjustifiable standards.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “we are now firmly convinced that adoption of the merger doctrine is not compelled either by principles of sound statutory construction or by the state or federal constitutions, and that adoption of the doctrine by this court would be an unwarranted and insupportable invasion of the legislative function in defining crimes. We therefore reaffirm this court's refusal to apply the doctrine of merger to the crime of felony-murder in this state.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The killing of a human being, unless it is excusable or justifiable, is murder in the second degree when— (1) Committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed or of another, but without premeditation; or (2) When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, or in withdrawing from the scene of, a felony other than those enumerated in [former] RCW 9.48.030.”
    2 later decisions 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.