95 Wash. 2d 828 - State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2019
16 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 91 Wash. 2d 342 - State v. Boyer · 82 Wash. 2d 584 - State v. J-R Distributors, Inc. · 91 Wash. 2d 487 - In Re the Welfare of Wilson · State v. Peasley · 89 Wash. 2d 584 - State v. Hegge
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unlawful, except as authorized in this chapter and chapter 69.41 RCW, for any person to offer, arrange, or negotiate for the sale, gift, delivery, dispensing, distribution, or administration of a controlled substance to any person and then sell, give, deliver, dispense, distribute, or administer to that person any other liquid, substance, or material in lieu of such controlled substance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is thus evident that the legislature . . . was concerned with the conduct of contracting to deliver a controlled substance and thereafter making a delivery [of a noncontrolled substance], ostensibly pursuant to that contract. Even though the accused may have delivered a substitute substance, thinking it was the one contracted for, his culpability would be no less, for in either case it was his intent to violate the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Simmons“It is impossible for one to contract for the delivery of a controlled substance without knowing what he is doing, since to contract involves an intentional act. . . . The element of guilty knowledge . . . would be established by proof of the contract to deliver.”
1 later decision 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.