Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 WASH 563 - State v. Payne

State v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
4
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 116 Wash. 2d 531 - State v. Ray (1991), 74 Wash. 2d 386 - State v. White (1968)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 state decisions

8018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Bartholomew v. People · Freidrich v. Territory of Washington · Card v. Foot · People v. Brown · Williams 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We apprehend, however, that the duties and powers of deputy sheriffs mentioned in § 80 are such only as are usually incident to the office of sheriff, and are to be performed by him in his official capacity as sheriff, and do not include the- execution of duties which are unofficial in character, and which may by law be performed as well by any other county officer who may be properly requested to perform them. The sheriff is designated by the legislature to perform, or assist in performing, the important duty of drawing the names of those who shall act as jurors, not because he is sheriff, but because he is deemed a proper person to execute a trust which must be confided to some one to perform.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While we are loth to disturb the verdict of a jury on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, yet where the evidence as disclosed by the record is palpably insufficient to warrant the verdict, as we deem it to be in this case, it is our duty to say so and to award a new trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.