91 Wash. App. 367 - State v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably State v. JM (2001), State v. Williams (2001)
2 district · 47 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Thornhill v. Alabama · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent · Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. · City of Houston v. Hill
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted... as a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of [another individual].”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a judge if a person directs a threat to a judge because of a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding, or if by use of a threat directed to a judge, a person attempts to influence a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding. (2) “Threat” as used in this section means: (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or (b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110[(26)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the answer to those two questions is yes, [the court] must strike the statute as overbroad unless the regulation of protected speech is constitutionally permissible or it is possible to limit the statutes construction so that it does not unconstitutionally interfere with protected speech.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Luther
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.