Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Wash. App. 272 - State v. Harris

2 Wash. App. 272 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

2 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2001

2 district · 19 state decisions

1001970198019902000decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Abbate v. United States

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

  1. “We are tempted to announce the rule that the remedy by appeal is inadequate whenever it appears inequitable to require the litigants to proceed through a lengthy, expensive trial which, if the present state of the case were allowed to continue, would mean an unquestioned reversal and termination of the entire litigation when appealed after the trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A second trial for the same offense raises the concern of whether or not [the trial court] would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction in proceeding to try the defendant for the offenses charged in the . . . information. Where the constitution prohibits a double jeopardy trial, it would be our view that a trial court does exceed its jurisdiction in proceeding with such trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “because the record demonstrates without question that the retrial of petitioner for assault and murder will require reliti-gation of the same ultimate fact — (did petitioner mail the package containing the explosives?) — we have the view that collateral estoppel applies to prohibit retrial on that issue.”
    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.