State v. Vavra’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 26 Wash. 2d 405 - State v. Cooper · 70 Wash. 2d 591 - State v. Jones · 3 Wash. App. 691 - State v. Woods · 47 Wash. 2d 255 - Casey v. Williams · 76 Wash. 2d 293 - State v. Gilmore
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such an understanding or agreement between the prosecutor and the only independent critical witness which linked defendant Vavra with the actual robbery should have been disclosed to defense counsel for the purpose of possible impeachment. The jurors may well have found that the leniency and favoritism shown to the critical independent witness whose testimony was required to link Vavra with the crime made him less believable, and thus it was error not to disclose the terms of this arrangement to defense counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Reversal for noncompliance with this statute arises from an abuse of discretion by the trial court or some substantial injury to the defendant.”
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.