State v. Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2019
1 district · 17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant. .... (3) "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(25).[ [1] ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Montano · State v. Burke“Although it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which application of the statute would be unreasonable, that alone will not render it unconstitutional. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers [for Vincent], 466 U.S. 789, 800 , 104 S. Ct. 2118, 2126 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984). Unless there is a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the court, we will not declare it facially invalid on overbreadth grounds. Taxpayers, [ 466 U.S. at 801 ], We do not see that danger here.”
1 later decision 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(25).”
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.