Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 Wash. App. 952 - State v. Fleming

27 Wash. App. 952 - State v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
4
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2010

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

901980199020002010decided

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 Beck v. Dye · 76 Wash. 2d 398 - Johnston v. Ohls · 86 Wash. 2d 58 - Brewer v. Copeland · 35 Wash. 2d 233 - State v. Murley · 43 Wash. 2d 315 - Robbins v. Greene

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

  1. “The crucial question in all cases is whether the statement was made while the declarant was still under the influence of the event to the extent that his statement could not be the result of fabrication, intervening actions, or the exercise of choice or judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The statement or declaration made must relate to the main event and must explain, elucidate, or in some way characterize that event; (2) it must be a natural declaration or statement growing out of the event, and not a mere narrative of a past, completed affair; (3) it must be a statement of fact, and not the mere expression of an opinion; (4) it must be a spontaneous or instinctive utterance of thought, dominated or evoked by the transaction or occurrence itself, and not the product of premeditation, reflection, or design; (5) while the declaration or statement need not be coincident or contemporaneous with the occurrence of the event, it must be made at such time and under such circumstances as will exclude the presumption that it is the result of deliberation, and (6) it must appear that the declaration or statement was made by one who either participated in the transaction or witnessed the act or fact concerning which the declaration or statement was made.”
    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.