Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 Wash. 2d 31 - State v. Cunningham

96 Wash. 2d 31 - State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 154 Wash. 2d 118 - State v. Hughes (2005), 118 Wash. 2d 37 - State v. Saas (1991)

40 state decisions

21019811990200020102020decided

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 Woodson v. North Carolina · 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · Woosley v. United States · 61 Ill. 2d 583 - People v. Bolyard · United States v. Lawrence D. Hartford, AKA 'Larry,' United States of America v. Dale Bowdoin, United States of America v. Mike Newton

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

  1. “`manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he trial judge determined that the reasons for imposing imprisonment in first degree robbery cases would always outweigh individual factors opposing imprisonment. He came to this conclusion only after considering and weighing numerous factors, however. He did not refuse to listen to or consider individualized factors; he merely decided, after extensive reasoning, that he could see no reason why the individualized factors would allow him, in good judicial conscience, to give probation after a conviction of armed robbery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n most cases a fixed sentencing policy would not be justifiable. Here, however, even though that resolution of the problem is neither mandatory nor preferred, we cannot say it was so arbitrary or unreasonable as to manifest an abuse of discretion in light of the trial judge's clearly articulated reasons.”
    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.