44 Wash. App. 803 - State v. Bebb’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2021
20 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 Haines v. Kerner · Faretta v. California · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Bounds v. Smith
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`remain silent at trial as to claimed errors and later, if the verdict is adverse, urge trial objections for the first time in a motion for new trial or appeal.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence ... more probable or less probable”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is purely speculative to believe this evidence could have been of any benefit to Mr. Bebb or could have affected the outcome of Mr. Bebb's trial. At most, if it could have been fully developed by Mr. Bebb that the State's experts were wrong, this still would have created merely a possibility that the outcome of Mr. Bebb's trial could have been different. This mere possibility will not comport with the "reasonable probability" referred to in the Agurs test as noted in United States v. Bagley, supra, and does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense as noted in State v. Mak, supra. The trial court did not err when it denied Mr. Bebb access to the evidence.”
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.