Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 Wash. 2d 243 - State v. Fliehman

35 Wash. 2d 243 - State v. Fliehman’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 1985
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Sandros · Pinckard v. Pease · Scandinavian American Bank v. Long

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

  1. “It is error to admit the prior inconsistent uncross-examined written statements of a witness, unless, on cross-examination, the witness has been confronted with the self-contradiction and has been given the opportunity to explain it or to reconcile it with his testimony. [Citations omitted.] Whether or not such error is prejudicial, depends upon the circumstances of each case. The magnitude of the error in this case was increased by the absence of limiting instructions on the functions of impeachment.”
    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.