42 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Emmanuel’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably 102 Wash. 2d 188 - State v. Kelly (1984), 76 Wash. 2d 449 - State v. Gefeller (1969)
25 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 People v. Weitzel · State v. Melvern · State v. Durnam · Buel v. State · State v. Devlin
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding what has just been said, if a defendant puts his prior conduct into issue by testifying as to his own past good behavior, he may be cross-examined as to specific acts of misconduct .unrelated to the crime charged. State v. Armstrong, 29 Wash. 57 , 69 Pac. 392 ; State v. Melvern, 32 Wash. 7 , 72 Pac. 489 ; State v. Hollister, 157 Wash. 4 , 288 Pac. 249 ; State v. Johnson, 180 Wash. 401 , 40 P. (2d) 159 ; State v. Kelly, 187 Wash. 301 , 60 P. (2d) 50 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“With regard to impeachment, it is provided by statute that a prior conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting the weight of a witness’ testimony. . . . But a witness may not be impeached by showing specific acts of misconduct. . . . This is true whether the impeachment is attempted by means of extrinsic evidence or cross-examination. . . . It is likewise true whether or not the past act of misconduct actually amounts to a crime.”
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.