16 Wash. App. 195 - State v. Upton’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 28 Wash. App. 98 - State v. Edmon (1981), State v. Waller (1991)
33 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Hale · 73 Wash. 2d 616 - State v. Martin · 82 Wash. 2d 777 - State v. Craig
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An instruction on an issue or theory which is unsupported by the evidence is improper. State v. Piche, 71 Wn.2d 583, 430 P.2d 522 (1967); State v. Jackson, 70 Wn.2d 498 , 424 P.2d 313 (1967); State v. Woods, 163 Wash. 224 , 1 P.2d 219 (1931). Unlike State v. Thomas, 63 Wn.2d 59 , 385 P.2d 532 (1963), where the propriety of the "lawless acts" language in the first sentence of this instruction was also raised, no evidence was introduced in the present case indicating the defendant had committed illegal or unlawful acts which might have occasioned the assault. Reference to "lawless acts" therefore should be omitted if, upon retrial, no evidence is introduced upon which a jury could premise a finding that the defendant created the necessity to act in self-defense through some illegal or unlawful act. Cf. State v. Thomas, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No person may, by any intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response, create a necessity for acting in self[-] defense and thereupon use force upon another person. Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor, and that defendant's acts and conduct provoked or commenced the fight, then self-defense is not available as a defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[N]o man can by his own lawless acts, create a necessity for acting in self-defense ...”
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.