3 Wash. App. 139 - Jankelson v. Cisel’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2010
22 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 72 Wash. 2d 73 - Pederson v. Dumouchel · Christine M. Grunewald, Individually and as of the Will of Henry W. Grunewald, Deceased v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Missouri Corporation · 68 Wash. 2d 304 - State v. Louie · 74 Wash. 2d 888 - State v. Lampshire · 40 Wash. 2d 238 - Donaldson v. Greenwood
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To fall within the ban of article 4, section 16, the jury must be able to infer from the trial judge's comments that he personally believes or disbelieves evidence relative to a disputed issue. The action of the judge must be such that it will fairly import to the jury an expression of judicial opinion relative to credibility of some significant evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The withdrawal of an attorney in a civil case or his discharge does not give the party an absolute right of continuance. Grunewald v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 331 F.2d 983 (8th Cir. 1964); Annot., 48 A.L.R.2d 1155 (1956). The rationale for this rule is that if a contrary rule should prevail, all a party desiring a continuance, under such circumstances, would have to do would be to discharge his counsel or induce him to file a notice of withdrawal. Peterson v. Crockett, 158 Wash. 631 , 291 P. 721 (1930). The corollary of this rule is that the decision whether to grant or to refuse a continuance in such a situation rests in the discretion of the court to which the application is made, and the ruling of the trial court in the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed except for manifest abuse of discretion. Swope v. Sundgren, 73 Wn.2d 747 , 440 P.2d 494 (1968); Barrinuevo v. Barrinuevo, 47 Wn.2d 296 , 287 P.2d 349 (1955); Donaldson v. Greenwood, 40 Wn.2d 238 , 242 P.2d 1038 (1952); see note and cases cited in 26 Wash. L. Rev. 212 (1951).”
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.