Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 Wash. 534 - State v. Everson

State v. Everson’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
10
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Espy v. State (1939), Layton v. Palmer (1958)

29 state decisions — followed in 10 states

60193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Burke · State v. Baker

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

  1. ““If the effect of such an experiment is to put the jury in possession of evidence which should have been but was not offered on the trial, it is not permissible, but if the experiment involves merely a more critical examination of an exhibit than had been made of it in the court, there is no ground of objection. . . .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he rule ... is to the effect that, if the experiment, or what the jury has done, has the effect of putting them in possession of material facts which should have been supported by evidence upon the trial, but which was not offered, this generally constitutes such misconduct as will vitiate the verdict. But if the experiment involves merely a more critical examination of an exhibit than had been made of it in the court, there is no ground of objection.”
    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.