Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 Wash. 2d 377 - State v. Mevis

53 Wash. 2d 377 - State v. Mevis’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
September 1982
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1982

13 state decisions

801959196019701980decided

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. Payne · State v. Donckers · State v. Humphreys · State v. Munson · State v. Spencer

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

  1. “"... When a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances tending to show his guilt will support a conviction. When the fact of possession ... is supplemented by the giving of a false or improbable explanation of it, or a failure to explain when a larceny is charged, ... or the giving of a fictitious name, a case is made for the jury."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Where a person is accused of burglary, proof of recent possession of the property alleged to have been stolen from the premises is not of itself sufficient to justify a conviction of burglary. Therefore, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the property, if any, in possession of the defendant was the same property allegedly stolen in the burglary. Then and only then may you consider proof of recent possession of the property alleged to have been stolen as evidence of participation in the burglary alleged. Even if you do consider the evidence, the defendant’s possession of this property is not alone sufficient to warrant you in finding him guilty, but is merely a circumstance which may be taken in connection with all the other facts and circumstances in the case in arriving at your verdict.”
    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.