60 Wash. 2d 21 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably State v. Finch (1999), 82 Wash. 2d 577 - State v. Roybal (1973)
53 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 Ciucci v. Illinois · State v. Devlin · State v. Gates · State v. Priest · State v. Campbell
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The testimony of the prosecuting witness, to which defendant now objects, is relevant, for it tends to establish a common scheme or plan. Being a continuation of the crime charged, we cannot say that the "minute peg of relevancy will be entirely obscured by the dirty linen hung upon it." Our conclusion that the evidence of a subsequent crime was admissible, under the facts of this case, is supported by the decisions of this court in State v. Crowder, 119 Wash. 450 , 205 Pac. 850 (1922), and State v. Brown, 31 Wn. (2d) 475, 197 P. (2d) 590 , 202 P. (2d) 461 (1948).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“constituent element in the perpetration of the greater offense.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We do not place undue weight... on the fact that the reference to "parole officer" was inadvertent, . . . for the remark, if prejudicial, would have substantially the same effect on defendant's rights to a fair trial whether the statement was inadvertent or intentional.”
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.