Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 WASHAPP 893 - Spokane County v. Bates

Spokane County v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2011

4 state decisions

20199920002010decided

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 State v. Bourgeois · 127 Wash. 2d 759 - Vashon Island Committee for Self-Government v. Washington State Boundary Review Board · 118 Wash. 2d 551 - State v. Elgin · State v. Bash · 117 Wash. 2d 479 - State v. Blair

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

  1. “5.04.070 Control of dogs. The following dog control regulations are police regulations designed to protect public health and safety. The owner or keeper of a dog is strictly liable to control his/her dog or dogs as required herein. This means that the penalty for violation of these regulations is imposed without regard to any wrongful intention of the violator. It is unlawful for the owner or keeper of a dog or dogs to violate any of the following regulations. The owner or keeper of a dog or dogs shall prevent said dogs from: .... (6) Exhibiting vicious propensities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “could be interpreted to mean merely that the County is not required to prove that the owner encouraged his or her dog to bite. He further maintains that like RCW 16.08.100(3), Spokane County Code 5.04.070(6) does not specifically eliminate knowledge as an element of the offense. Bash was decided under the specific language of RCW 16.08.100(3), which differs significantly from the language of Spokane County Code 5.04.070(6). The”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It will be offered, and the jury is instructed to consider this solely for the basis of notification of the defendant of the dog's status and history, not to be considered as truth of the actual incidents themselves.”
    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.