Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 Wash. App. 709 - State v. Dault

19 Wash. App. 709 - State v. Dault’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
6
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably State v. Rivers (1996), 90 Wash. App. 54 - State v. Johnson (1998)

28 state decisions

14019781980199020002010decided

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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · Williams v. Florida · Wardius v. Oregon · Baldwin v. New York Williams

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. “Generally, evidence of drug abuse is admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness if (1) there is a showing that the witness is using or is influenced by drugs at the time of testifying, (2) if there is a showing that the witness was using or was influenced by the drugs at the time of the occurrence which is the subject of the testimony, or (3) when a defendant puts his own character in issue. State v. Renneberg, 83 Wash.2d 735, 738 , 522 P.2d 835 (1974). Annot., Use of Drugs as Affecting Competency or Credibility of Witness, 65 A.L.R.2d 705 § 5(a) and § 6 (1975); 50 Wash.L.Rev. 106 (1975).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “of considerable importance is the fact that the attorneys’ revelations were made in the presence of their clients. Both defendants were present in court at the omnibus hearing. Although the form suggested by [an omnibus hearing] may not be such as would cause the defendants to speak out, they could have consulted with their counsel if in fact the defense was otherwise.”
    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.