Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 P.2d 100 - State v. Dolson

State v. Dolson’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2024

20 state decisions

1301999200020102020decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Bell v. Burson · 127 Wash. 2d 270 - State v. Rogers · State v. Storhoff · 49 Wash. App. 778 - State v. Baker

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

  1. “(1) Whenever any person after applying for or receiving a driver's license or identicard moves from the address named in the application or in the license or identicard issued to him or her, the person shall within ten days thereafter notify the department of the address change. The notification must be in writing on a form provided by the department and must include the number of the person's driver's license. The written notification, or other means as designated by rule of the department, is the exclusive means by which the address of record maintained by the department concerning the licensee or identicard holder may be changed. (a) The form must contain a place for the person to indicate that the address change is not for voting purposes.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A driver's license cannot be revoked without due process of law. Due process requires that the license holder be given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation. The notice must be "reasonably calculated to inform the affected [sic] party of the pending action and of the opportunity to object." The State bears the burden of proving that the revocation complied with due process. If the revocation does not comply with due process, it is void.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] notice procedure that contradicts a licensee's legal expectations cannot be reasonably calculated to provide notice. DOL's decision to send notification to an address other than the address of record did not comply with the spirit of the statute because it conflicted with the statutory objective to put control over the notification process in the hands of the licensee.”
    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.