Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 Wash. 2d 836 - Gardner v. Malone

60 Wash. 2d 836 - Gardner v. Malone’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
3
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

91 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 109 Wash. 2d 235 - Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc. (1987), 110 Wash. 2d 32 - State v. Ng (1988)

91 state decisions

210196219701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Parker · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co. · State v. Aker · State v. Burke · Marvin v. Yates

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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “One test is whether the facts alleged are linked to the juror's motive, intent, or belief, or describe their effect upon him.... Another test is whether that to which the juror testifies can be rebutted by other testimony without probing the juror's mental processes.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"In considering the affidavits filed, we entirely discard those portions which may tend to impeach the verdict of the jurors, and consider only those facts stated in relation to misconduct of the juror, and which in no way inhere in the verdict itself. It is not for the juror to say what effect the remarks may have had upon his verdict, but he may state facts, and from them the court will determine what was the probable effect upon the verdict. It is for the court to say whether the remarks made by the juror in this case probably had a prejudicial effect upon the minds of the other jurors. "”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a consideration of the whole of the pertinent record.”
    4 later decisions 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.