111 Wash. 2d 793 - State v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 822 - State v. Blackwell (1993), State v. Gregory (2006)
47 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 United States v. Nixon · United States v. Nobles · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Williams v. Florida · Wardius v. Oregon
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to provide adequate information for informed pleas, expedite trials, minimize surprise, afford opportunity for effective cross-examination, and meet the requirements of due process, discovery prior to trial should be as full and free as possible consistent with protections of persons, effective law enforcement, the adversary system, and national security.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he discovery rules `are designed to enhance the search for truth' and their application by the trial court should `insure a fair trial to all concerned, neither according to one party an unfair advantage nor placing the other at a disadvantage.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We cannot conclude that the trial courts order [requiring defense counsel to produce for in camera review all alleged work product] would have a chilling effect on either trial preparation by defense counsel or on the attorney-client relationship such as to deny defendant his right to counsel. To the contrary, we would expect diligent counsel to continue to interrogate potential prosecution witnesses whenever reasonably possible. Experienced members of the trial bar will and ordinarily should seek to ascertain what eveiy witness will likely testify to at trial. Prudent practice, especially in a criminal case as serious as this one, calls for no less.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Drewry
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.