State v. Chaten’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2016
7 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 117 Wash. 2d 93 - State v. Kjorsvik · 125 Wash. 2d 782 - State v. Vangerpen · 118 Wash. 2d 151 - State v. Hopper · State v. Carter · 119 Wash. 2d 657 - State v. Davis
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an assault is commonly understood to be an intentional act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because an assault is commonly understood as an intentional act, we hold that the information, which charged assault, did not omit the element of intent.[ 14 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An assault is by definition an intentional act and is commonly understood as such.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Taylor
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.