Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 SW3D 248 - State v. Wolfe

State v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

83 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Pulley v. Harris · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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

  1. “[I]mpeaching testimony should be confined to the real and ultimate object of the inquiry, which is the reputation of the witness for truth and veracity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) The facts showing the materiality of the evidence sought to be obtained and due diligence upon the part of the applicant to obtain such witness or testimony; (b) The name and residence of such witness ... and also facts showing reasonable grounds for belief that the attendance or testimony of such witness will be procured within a reasonable time; (c) What particular facts the affiant believes the witness will prove, and that he knows of no other person whose evidence or attendance he could have procured at the trial, by whom he can prove or so fully prove the same facts; (d) That such witness is not absent by the connivance, consent, or procurement of the applicant, and such application is not made for vexation or delay, but in good faith for the purpose of obtaining a fair and impartial trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In determining the punishment to be assessed under Count I against the defendant for the murder of Eva Washington, you must first unanimously determine whether one or more of the following statutory aggravating circumstances exists: [[Image here]] 2. Whether the murder of Eva Washington involved depravity of mind and whether, as a result thereof, the murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman. You can make a determination of depravity of mind only if you find the defendant committed repeated and excessive acts of physical abuse upon Eva Washington and the killing was therefore unreasonably brutal. 11”
    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.