Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 55 Wash. 2d 329 - State v. McCaskey

55 Wash. 2d 329 - State v. McCaskey’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 1980
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1980

11 state decisions

901959196019701980decided

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 Mulligan v. Commonwealth · Hollin v. Commonwealth · Bailey v. Commonwealth · Hogan v. Commonwealth · Alder v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “The language of the former statute [RCW 9.54.020], by providing that a culpable rider is equally guilty with the driver, declares that the act described shah be deemed in law the equivalent of aiding, abetting, counseling, or encouraging the principal act. RCW 9.54.020 denotes as “aiding and abetting” in law that which would independently have been strong evidence of such participation. Therefore, appellant’s riding in the stolen car with guilty knowledge, by reason of the statute making him equally guilty with the driver, constituted him an aider and abettor of the principal act of the codefendant. RCW 9.01.030 makes such principal act the act of the aider and abettor. Both are principals and chargeable as such. Where two defendants are charged jointly as principals and there is proof that one acted as aider and abettor, by reason of the statute (RCW 9.01.030), the proof will sustain the charge and conviction of both as principals.”
    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.