6 Wash. App. 153 - State v. Moxley’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2018
18 state decisions
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 70 Wash. 2d 697 - State v. Hawkins · 35 Wash. 2d 389 - State v. Robbins · State v. Winnett · 2 Wash. App. 910 - State v. Berkins · State v. McMullins
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant's second motion filed 5 days before trial was based on a 4-paragraph newspaper story in the same newspaper concerning a second fire which burned down the dwelling and called attention to the family's need for assistance. There were also daily broadcasts over a radio station in the vicinity several times each day containing the same information as contained in the newspaper story but adding that the house was uninsured. The trial court denied this motion. At trial the defendant renewed his motion and his renewed motion was denied. On voir dire examination, preliminary questions were asked about whether the respective jurors had heard about the case or had any preconceived bias or prejudice. Some jurors had not heard about the fire. Furthermore, nothing in the answers of the individual jurors indicated even probable bias or prejudice against the defendant. The court concluded "Nobody indicates that would be a problem." The granting of a motion for change of venue or continuance on account of pretrial publicity is within the trial court's discretion, reviewable only for abuse. State v. Malone, 75 Wn.2d 612, 452 P.2d 963 (1969); State v. Hawkins, 70 Wn.2d 697 , 425 P.2d 390 (1967). See also State v. Stiltner, 4 Wn. App. 33 , 479 P.2d 103 (1971); State v. Valenzuela, 75 Wn.2d 876, 454 P.2d 199 (1969). We find no abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The fact that the legislature in amending the statute in 1965 did not change the long-followed State v. Kephart rule, supra, indicates legislative acquiescence in the Kephart rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“criminal action for a crime committed by one against the other.”
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.