3 Wash. App. 933 - Tate v. Rommel’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2018
14 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 60 Wash. 2d 836 - Gardner v. Malone · State v. Parker · 66 Wash. 2d 263 - Allison v. Department of Labor & Industries · 29 Wash. 2d 650 - Kellerher v. Porter · Mathisen v. Norton
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Common experience indicates a juror, or a judge, may form impressions or opinions as to the outcome of a case as he hears each bit of evidence. These impressions or opinions may change from time to time throughout the case. Such opinions or impressions normally are not revealed, and they should not be revealed, until the case is ready for decision. Here, juror Cyrus revealed his private opinion after the first day of trial. It is not unreasonable to expect that many of the other jurors, had they been questioned during the trial, would have formed some like opinion as to the outcome as did juror Cyrus. If we were to adopt the trial court's conclusion that the mere revealing of his private opinion or impression constitutes such misconduct as to justify a new trial without a further showing that such misconduct prejudiced the outcome of the trial, it would open the door to interrogation of jurors after trial for the purpose of discovering such unrevealed opinions as a basis for the filing of a motion for new trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he court has, in cases where a juror gave false answers to questions on voir dire that would have revealed bias, granted a new trial without considering whether the misconduct prejudiced or affected the outcome of the trial. Allison v. Department of Labor & Indus., [ 66 Wn.2d 263, 265 , 401 P.2d 982 (1965)]; Alexson v. Pierce County, 186 Wash. 188 , 57 P.2d 318 (1936); Mathisen v. Norton, 187 Wash. 240 , 60 P.2d 1 (1936); Heasley v. Nichols, 38 Wash. 485 , 80 P. 769 (1905). Cf. Nelson v. Placanica, 33 Wn.2d 523 , 206 P.2d 296 (1949); Grist v. Schoenburg, 115 Wash. 335 , 197 P. 35 (1921).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he mere revealing of an opinion, as to the ultimate outcome of a trial by an otherwise unbiased juror, before submission of the case to the jury, based upon evidence properly received, while not to be condoned, does not, standing alone, constitute such misconduct as to justify the granting of a new trial.”
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.