State v. Winfield’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Low (2008), Pratt v. Nelson (2007)
98 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 State v. Holgate · State v. Menzies · State v. Litherland · State v. Hamilton · State v. Pinder
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, we have declined to engage in even plain error review when `counsel, either by statement or act, affirmatively represented to the [trial] court that he or she had no objection to the [proceedings].'”
15 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Redding · State v. Floyd“a party cannot take advantage of an error committed at trial when that party led the trial court into committing the error.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. Allen · Malek v. Bigelow“[A] party who represents himself will be held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as any qualified member of the bar. Nevertheless, because of his lack of technical knowledge of law and procedure, [a pro se litigant] should be accorded every consideration that may reasonably be indulged.”
9 later decisions 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.