60 Wash. 2d 144 - State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014
9 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 Spano v. People of the State of New York · State v. Silver · State v. Deloria
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.
“An order dismissing a prosecution under the provisions of RCW 10.37.020, 10.46.010, and 10.46.090 shall bar another prosecution for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor where the prosecution dismissed charged the same misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor; but in no other case shall such order of dismissal bar another prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“who stands convicted herein in this State of a crime of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element and who has previously been twice convicted of a crime which under the laws of this State amount to a felony, to-wit: Said Lawrence Garman has previously been convicted as follows: (1) On or about the 3rd day of September, 1938, of the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree in the State of Utah; (2) On or about the 21st day of February, 1951, of the crime of Grand Larceny in the State of Washington; (3) On or about the 7th day of July, 1955, of the crime of Forgery in the First Degree in the State of Washington; (4) On or about the 22nd day of October, 1959, of the crime of Grand Larceny in the State of Washington; (5) On or about the 14th day of June, 1961, of the crime of Grand Larceny in the State of Washington; and by virtue of the statute of the State of Washington in such cases made and provided (RCW 9.92.090) should be punished herein as an habitual criminal by imprisonment for life.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This privilege is not related to the question of admissibility of nontestimonial statements or confessions. . . . The proper grounds for the exclusion of a confession are that it has been obtained in violation of the constitutional requirement of due process or that it has not met the test of our statutory requirement for admissibility of confessions.”
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.