60 Wash. 2d 214 - State v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle (1999), 29 Cal. 3d 682 - People v. Meredith (1981)
56 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad · State v. Kociolek · State v. Hunt · Smart v. Kansas City · State v. Winnett
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'when the examination is made by the physician for the express purpose of publishing the results,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If defense counsel is required to testify under compulsion, it might well be that defendant's right to complete and unhampered representation is invaded. Balanced against this, however, is the possibility that defense counsel's testimony is necessary to the state's case in the interest of justice and for the protection of the public.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Regan · State v. Regan““ ‘In the courts of the District of Columbia no physician or surgeon shall be permitted, without the consent of the person afflicted, or of his legal representative, to disclose any information, confidential in its nature, which he shall have acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity * * *.’ D.C.Code 1951, § 14-308, 29 Stat. 138 . ‘ “The local statute is very broad. It forbids disclosure by the physician of any information obtained by him in his professional capacity. ” Sher v. De Haven, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 257 , 260, 199 F.2d 777, 780 , 36 A.L.R.2d 937 , certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 936 , 73 S.Ct. 797 , 97 L.Ed. 1363 . “In regard to mental patients, the policy behind such a statute is particularly clear and strong. Many physical ailments might be treated with some degree of effectiveness by a doctor whom the patient did not trust, but a psychiatrist must have his patient’s confidence or he cannot help him. ‘The psychiatric patient confides more utterly than anyone else in the world. He exposes to the therapist not only what his words directly express; he lays bare his entire self, his dreams, his fantasies, his sins, and his shame. Most patients who undergo psychotherapy know that this is what will be expected of them, and that they cannot get help except on that condition. * * * It would be too much to expect them to do so if they knew that all they say — and all that the psychiatrist learns from what”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shaw
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.