Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Wash. App. 564 - State v. Ellison

36 Wash. App. 564 - State v. Ellison’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably Wood v. Bartholomew (1995), State v. Sanders (1994)

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1601984199020002010decided

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 Doyle v. Ohio · Fare v. Michael C. · Benjamin v. United States · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · Cabrera-Martinez v. United States

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

  1. “When a defendant is charged under a criminal statute that describes a single offense committable in more than one way, rather than separate and distinct offenses, jury unanimity is unnecessary as to the means but ... [is necessary] as to the commission of the offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[1] the title of the act; [2] whether there is a readily perceivable connection between the various acts set forth; [3] whether the acts are consistent with and not repugnant to each other; [4] and whether the acts may inhere in the same transaction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “It would be anomalous to conclude that the admission of such evidence for impeachment purposes is required by the confrontation clause, and we decline to so hold”
    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.