Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 GAAPP 764 - Washington v. State

Washington v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · 266 Ga. App. 652 - Hughes v. State · 270 Ga. App. 449 - Felton v. State · 252 Ga. App. 289 - Ruffin v. State · 249 Ga. App. 530 - Parker v. State

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

  1. “did unlawfully knowingly and willingly execute a document, to wit: a affidavit attesting to the alleged mental illness of [the victim], with the intent to obtain an emergency committal order for the Probate Court ... knowing that it purports to be an acknowledgement of a lawful oath or affirmation, containing a false statement, to-wit: that he had knowledge within the preceding 48 hours that the [victim] was addicted to crack cocaine and refused treatment, and that she was attempting to kill herself daily....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “in order to rebut the presumption of sanity of the victim. Washington also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to contact the other person who signed the affidavit. First, the record shows that Washington was the only person who knew the identity of the second person whose illegible signature appears on the affidavit, but that he never disclosed the identity of this person to his trial counsel. And trial counsel testified that he”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “As with any factual merger question, the dispositive issue is whether the State “used up” its evidence in proving the crime: “The actual evidence test, in effect, means that if the state uses up all the evidence that the defendant committed one crime in establishing another crime, the former crime is included in the latter as a matter of fact under OCGA § 16-1-6 (1).” (Cits.)”
    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.