38 Wash. 2d 774 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 87 Wash. 2d 374 - State v. Arndt (1976), 81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n (1972)
8 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
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. Miller · State v. Hemrich · State v. Nilnch · State v. Lewis · State v. Alexander
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[G]eneral terms appearing in a statute in connection with precise, specific terms, shall be accorded meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items or things similar to those designated by the precise or specific terms. In other words, the precise terms modify, influence or restrict the interpretation or application of the general terms where both are used in sequence or collocation in legislative enactments.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t would seem that appellant is not entitled to blow both hot and cold . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Many of the early cases held that it did not constitute a burglarious breaking to open further a door or window sufficiently to gain an entrance, but a large majority of the later cases are to the contrary. . . . We think the better reasoning, as well as the weight of authority, supports the modern rule. The gist of burglarious breaking is the application of force to remove some obstacle to entry, and the amount of force employed is not material. The exercise of the slightest force is suffi cient. The breaking consists of the removal by the intruder, by the exercise of force, of an obstruction which, if left untouched, would prevent entrance. Hence, the application of force to push further open an already partly open door or window to enable a person to enter a room or building, is a breaking sufficient to constitute burglary if the other essential elements of the offense are present. [Citations omitted.]”
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.