Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 Wash. 2d 564 - State v. Maxon

110 Wash. 2d 564 - State v. Maxon’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
July 2006
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably State v. Darden (2002), In re Grand Jury (1997)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

160198819902000decided

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 Berger v. United States · United States v. Nixon · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Branzburg v. Hayes · Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

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

  1. “Policy reasons against creating a parent-child privilege center on the loss of valuable evidence. We conclude that the loss of evidence concern outweighs the public policy arguments in favor of a parent-child privilege. We agree with the United States Supreme Court that excluding relevant evidence by creating a privilege is warranted only if the resulting public good transcends the normally predominant principle of using all rational means for ascertaining the truth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The Constitution does not mandate recognition of a parent-child privilege. The right of privacy line of cases gives no indication that the interest in confidential communications between parent and child qualifies as a fundamental right for the purpose of substantive due process analysis. Any infringement of this interest caused by nonrecognition of a parent-child privilege is indirect and incidental. At any rate, the fundamental state interest in the integrity of the fact-finding process is sufficiently compelling to override the interest in the privacy of parent-child communications.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`For more than three centuries it has now been recognized as a fundamental maxim that the public ... has a right to every man's evidence. When we come to examine the various claims of exemption, we start with the primary assumption that there is a general duty to give what testimony one is capable of giving and that any exemptions which may exist are distinctly exceptional, being so many derogations from a positive general rule.'”
    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.