Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 Wash. 2d 721 - State v. Sass

94 Wash. 2d 721 - State v. Sass’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 101 Wash. 2d 481 - State v. Gore (1984), 99 Wash. 2d 413 - State v. Vladovic (1983)

36 state decisions

1201980199020002010decided

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 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · 87 Wash. 2d 374 - State v. Arndt · 92 Wash. 2d 685 - Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition · 51 Wash. 2d 871 - City of Seattle v. Green · 25 Wash. App. 891 - State v. Wilson

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

  1. “"That the defendant, Charlette Nadine Delcambre, in King County, Washington, during a period of time between July 9, 1983, and February 28, 1986, by means of a wilfully false statement, or representation, or impersonation, and a wilful failure to reveal any material fact, condition or circumstance affecting eligibility or need for assistance, including medical care, surplus commodities and food stamps, as required by law, and a wilful failure to notify promptly the county office in writing as required by law of any change in status in respect to resources, or income, or need, or family composition, money contribution and other support, from whatever source derived, or any other change in circumstances affecting her eligibility or need for assistance, and other fraudulent device, did obtain public assistance from the Department of Social and Health Services in excess of $1500 to which she was not entitled; and that the defendant, Nolan Delcambre in King County, Washington during a period of time between July 9, 1983 and February 28,1986 did aid and abet Defendant Charlette Nadine Delcambre to obtain public assistance from the Department of Social and Health Services in excess of $1500.00 to which she was not entitled. "Contrary to RCW 9A.56.030 and 74.08.331, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Any person who by means of a wilfully false statement, or representation, or impersonation, or a wilful failure to reveal any material fact, condition or circumstance affecting eligibility of need for assistance, including medical care, surplus commodities and food stamps, as required by law, or a wilful failure to promptly notify the county office in writing as required by law or [sic] any change in status in respect to resources, or income, or need, or family composition, money contribution and other support, from whatever source derived, or any other change in circumstances affecting his eligibility or need for assistance, or other fraudulent device, obtains, or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets any person to obtain any public assistance to which he is not entitled or greater public assistance than that to which he is justly entitled shall be guilty of grand larceny and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than fifteen years.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]ll offenses defined as larcenies outside of this title shall be treated as thefts as provided in this title.” RCW 9A.56.100. As the history of judicial interpretation of this sentence shows, the precise legislative intent behind the phrase”
    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.