State v. Wappenstein’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably 42 Wash. 2d 799 - State v. Emmanuel (1953), 102 Wash. 2d 277 - State v. Dictado (1984)
49 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 Miles v. United States · Spies v. People · People v. Williams · Hornsby v. State · 7 E.H. Smith 576 - People v. . Peckens
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ “It is difficult to formulate a general rule stating the extent to which appellate courts will pass upon the weight and sufficiency of evidence and reverse because of an insufficiency of evidence, but the general rule seems to be that where there is material evidence tending to prove defendant’s guilt before the jury, and the trial court refuses to set their verdict aside, an appellate court will not reverse the action of both the trial court and the jury; that it will examine the record to see whether there is evidence proper to go to the jury, and upon which a verdict of guilt might reasonably be founded, and, being satisfied on that point, will refuse to interfere, whatever may be its own opinion of the weight or preponderance of the evidence. If, however, the verdict of the jury is altogether unsupported by any evidence whatever, or if it is against the evidence and every proper inference which is reasonably deducible therefrom, the judgment will be reversed by the appellate court.” ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘ ‘ ‘ The proof of conspiracy which will authorize the introduction of evidence as to the acts and declarations of the co-conspirators may be such proof only as is sufficient, in the opinion of the trial judge, to establish prima facie the fact of conspiracy between the parties, or proper to be laid before the jury, as tending to establish such fact.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGonigle“manifestly intended to meet cases not otherwise specifically provided for by statute. They have no application to acts which are, by specific and distinct statutes, expressly designated and made subject to punishment as primary crimes in themselves.”
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.