Faust v. Albertson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2022
1 district · 4 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 98 Wash. 2d 434 - Wilson v. Steinbach · 125 Wash. 2d 24 - State v. Russell · State v. Thomas · 114 Wash. 2d 907 - Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. Kallevig · 123 Wash. 2d 93 - Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“due to the ties of membership in the fraternal organization and impeached their testimony on the grounds of faulty memory and inconsistent statements. The Court of Appeals improperly weighed one side of this evidence against the other when it reversed the trial court's denial of the defense motion for judgment as a matter of law. D. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Admitting Beers' Declaration for Impeachment Purposes ¶ 24 Respondents argue that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Beers' declaration for impeachment purposes. CR 32(a)(3)(B) states that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Faust v. Albertson“Part of the deposition testimony concerns a written statement given by the witness to the Plaintiffs' investigator which was attached to the deposition. This instruction concerns that written statement. If you give any consideration to the written statement, you may only consider it in deciding what weight and credibility to give to Mr. Beers' deposition testimony, and for no other purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Faust v. Albertson“The following persons shall not be competent to testify: (1) Those who are of unsound mind, or intoxicated at the time of their production for examination, and (2) Children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. SJW
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.