Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 SW2D 801 - Burlison v. State

Burlison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
5
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 101 Wash. 2d 566 - State v. Petrich (1984), Kogan v. People (1988)

51 state decisions

23019731980199020002010decided

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 Poe v. State · Jamison v. State · Green v. State · Vinson v. State · Webb v. State

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

  1. “First, to enable the defendant to prepare for and make his defense to the specific charge; second, to protect him from double jeopardy by individualization of the issue, and third, so that the jury’s verdict may not be a matter of choice between offenses, some jurors convicting on one offense and others, another.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Upon admission by the State that the testimony of the witnesses was inadmissible under Curtis v. State, supra, the trial judge should have put an end to that controversy by entirely excluding the testimony of said three witnesses. Who can say that the stipulation was not construed by the jury to be a recognition by the trial judge, the State, and the defendant, that “hue and cry” was, in fact, made within all the requirements of the law. The stipulation had unmistakable implications prejudicial to defendant’s rights, circumvented the rule in Curtis v. State, supra, and should not have been permitted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “... in prosecutions for violation of the age of consent law and cognate crimes, evidence of other acts of intercourse both prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is competent, as tending to establish the commission of the special act under examination, as corroborative of the evidence ..., and for the purpose of showing the relation of the parties....”
    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.