State v. Espeland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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. ““In onr late decision En Banc in State v. Radoff, 140 Wash. 202 , 248 Pac. 405 , we held testimony of this nature to be erroneously received to the prejudice of the accused, there being no occasion to bring home to the accused knowledge of the maintenance of the place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. In this case, as in that, the general reputation of the place was in no sense properly drawn in question. Our former decisions touching the question of admissibility of evidence of reputation of a place, when critically read, are not out of harmony with our conclusion reached in that case and in this case. Hutchinson Inv. Co. v. Van Nostern, 99 Wash. 549, 170 Pac. 121 ; State v. Perrin, 127 Wash. 193 , 220 Pac. 772 ; State v. Anderson, 132 Wash. 551 , 232 Pac. 275 ; State v. Kallas, 133 Wash. 23 , 233 Pac. 315 ; State v. Maloney, 135 Wash. 309 , 237 Pac. 726 ; State v. Panovich, 136 Wash. 20 , 238 Pac. 903 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fairfield