58 Wash. 2d 383 - State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “it has also been held with equal unanimity that the question of whether or not the circumstantial evidence tending to link a defendant with the crime excludes, beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis other than the defendant’s guilt, is a question for the trier of fact ... See State v. Walters, 56 Wn. (2d) 79, 351 P. (2d) 147 (1960); State v. Lewis, 55 Wn. (2d) 665, 349 P. (2d) 438 (1960); State v. Grenz, 26 Wn. (2d) 764, 175 P. (2d) 633 (1946), appeal dismissed 332 U. S. 748 , 92 L. Ed. 336 , 68 S. Ct. 54 ; and State v. Donckers, 200 Wash. 45 , 93 P. (2d) 355 (1939).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Wash. 2d 845 - State v. Cerny

2. ““. . . in order to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved by the state must not only be consistent with each other and consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, but also must be inconsistent with any hypothesis or theory which would establish, or tend to establish, his innocence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Wash. 2d 845 - State v. Cerny

3. “Each error relied on shall be clearly pointed out and discussed under appropriately designated headings. . . . Whenever error is assigned to any finding or findings of fact, so much of the finding or findings made or refused as is claimed to be erroneous shall be set out verbatim in the brief ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 67 Wash. 2d 608 - Martin v. Clinton