Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 Wash. 2d 233 - State v. Murley

35 Wash. 2d 233 - State v. Murley’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
7
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably 103 Wash. 2d 165 - State v. Ryan (1984), 110 Wash. 2d 263 - State v. Ciskie (1988)

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

70194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 State v. Gay · State v. Hunter · State v. Griffin · State v. Myrberg · State v. Manville

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

  1. “This doctrine rests on the ground that a female naturally complains promptly of offensive sex liberties upon her person and that, on trial, an offended female complainant's omission of any showing as to when she first complained raises the inference that, since there is no showing that she complained timely, it is more likely that she did not complain at all, and therefore that it is more likely that the liberties upon her person, if any, were not offensive and that consequently her present charge is fabricated.... Modernly, the inference affects the woman's credibility generally, and the truth of her present complaint specifically, and consequently, we permit the state to show in its case-in-chief when the woman first made a complaint consistent with the charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A witness’ prior out-of-court statements consistent with his in-court testimony are admissible for the sole purpose of re-establishing the witness’ credibility when: (1) his testimony has been assailed (2) under circumstances inferring [sic] recent fabrication of his testimony (3) when the prior out-of-court statements were made under circumstances minimizing the risk that the witness foresaw the legal consequences of his statements. [Citing cases.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the credibility of the complaining witness, irrespective of whether it is assailed or unassailed, may be supported by evidence of her timely prior out-of-court complaint.”
    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.