39 Wash. App. 273 - State v. Hieb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 16 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The only purpose of showing a common scheme or plan is to establish, circumstantially, the commission of the act charged and the intent with which it was committed. Strictly speaking, the scope of this exception is limited to evidence which shows some causal connection between the two offenses, so that proof of the other offense could be said to evidence a pre-existing design, system, plan, or scheme directed toward the doing of the very act charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Wash. App. 446 - State v. York

2. “constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. [308 (1974)] at 318. State v. Hieb, 39 Wn. App. 273, 282 , 693 P.2d 145 (1984). We recently reached a contrary conclusion in State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985), where we stated:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 Wash. 2d 97 - State v. Hieb

3. “statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martinez