State v. Leyda’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
October 2010
most recently cited
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. Ohio · 99 Wash. 2d 413 - State v. Vladovic · State v. Adel · 118 Wash. 2d 151 - State v. Hopper · In Re 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime. (2)(a) Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice uses the victim's means of identification or financial information and obtains an aggregate total of credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value shall constitute identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the first degree is a class B felony. (b) Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice uses the victim's means of identification or financial information and obtains an aggregate total of credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value that is less than one thousand five hundred dollars in value, or when no credit, money, goods, services, or anything of value is obtained shall constitute identity theft in the second degree. Identity theft in the second degree is a class C felony.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[o]ne who possessed a sack of stolen credit cards, intending to use them but never doing so, would commit as many crimes as the sack held cards, while the thief who possessed only one card, but used it over and over, would commit only one crime. The identity thief would thus have a strong incentive to use a stolen card as often and for as much as possible, knowing that he or she could be charged with only one count. We do not believe the legislature intended these results.[ 15 ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same statute, the double jeopardy analysis focuses on what the legislature intends as the `unit of prosecution[ ]'. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fisher · State v. Fisher
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.