63 Wash. 2d 176 - State v. Badda’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 115 Wash. 2d 60 - State v. Camarillo (1990), 110 Wash. 2d 403 - State v. Kitchen (2004)
59 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 State v. Clark · State v. Pearson · State v. Susan · State v. Dickey · State v. Lowenthal
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The combined effect of an accumulation of errors, no one of which, perhaps, standing alone might be of sufficient gravity to constitute grounds for reversal, may well require a new trial. State v. Simmons, 59 Wn. (2d) 381, 368 P. (2d) 378 ; State v. Swenson, 62 Wn. (2d) 259, 382 P. (2d) 614 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[S]ince the jury was polled, there is no doubt that the verdict was unanimous and was the result of each juror's individual determination.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A principal is the chief actor or perpetrator of a crime. The testimony of the principal, given on behalf of the plaintiff, should be subjected to careful examination in the light of other evidence in the case, and should be acted upon with great caution. You should not find the defendant guilty upon such testimony alone unless, after carefully considering the testimony, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its truth.”
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.