36 Wash. 2d 67 - State v. Linton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

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

1. “need not be ... injury of a permanent character”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 Wash. 2d 112 - State v. Salinas · 77 Wash. 2d 593 - State v. Miles

2. “"* * * If this class of evidence was admissible as going to the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix in its entirety, then it would be equally admissible as against the veracity of any female who might be called upon to give evidence in a case. Yet no such principle is recognized anywhere * * *." People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, at 294 , 39 P. 622, at 623 (1895). See State v. Linton, 36 Wash.2d 67 , 216 P.2d 761 (1950).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court · 2 Wash. App. 820 - State v. Dorrough

3. “From 1909 to 1919, there was a reference to chaste character in the rape statute, although with respect to the punishment only. . . . Evidence as to previous chaste character was, therefore, directly pertinent in prosecutions under the 1909 statute. In 1919, the legislature reenacted and amended the 1909 statute, retaining subsection 3, above quoted, except that it omitted those words [“and of previously chaste character”]. Laws of 1919, chapter 132, p. 368, But it is not pertinent to any issue under the statute now in force, which is the statute of 1919.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 12 Wash. App. 138 - State v. Randolph