23 Wash. App. 826 - State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably 121 Wash. 2d 22 - State v. Riley (1993), 44 Cal. 3d 589 - People v. Ruiz (1988)
32 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Holloway v. Arkansas · Houltin v. United States · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Perini v. Downey
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury may be allowed to separate if the court finds that good reason exists to believe that such would not jeopardize a fair trial. Any motions or proceedings concerning the separation of the jury shall be made out of the presence of the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is unassailable that the State was required to prove, as a preliminary matter, that defendants beat David (assault) in order to prove that they beat him to death (manslaughter).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court: The court's ruling is that the furnishing of the reference in the beginning of the tape to the previously signed constitutional rights is strict compliance with the statute . . . because the statute is designed to provide a means in the tape itself for a listener to determine that the person giving the statement has had an opportunity to consider the constitutional rights that apply to that situation and to take appropriate action. The facts in this case, while they do not indicate that the statement-taker conformed to the strict words of the statute, still did comply with the requirement of the statute that the person giving the statement have an opportunity to make a conscious decision about his constitutional rights. The time of starting and stopping is also supplied by the written evidence of the waiver of the constitutional rights. It is for that reason . . . that I admitted the tapes in the light of the statute. The tapes, of course, were admitted for reasons other than the statute. The statute is a limiting statute, not an authorizing statute.”
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.