Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 Wash. 2d 724 - State v. Peele

67 Wash. 2d 724 - State v. Peele’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2013

20 state decisions

50196619701980199020002010decided

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 38 Wash. 2d 593 - State v. Wilson · State v. Adams · 62 Wash. 2d 579 - State v. Mesaros · State v. Hyde · State v. Anderson

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

  1. “Where, as in the instant case, the state has produced strong and convincing evidence of guilt and the defendant little or no evidence of innocence, a new trial should not be granted on the unsupported, uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or codefendant, nor upon the offer of any new evidence unless it appears that the newly discovered evidence is of such significance and cogency that it will probably change the result of the trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; and (5) that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[njewly discovered evidence . . . which [the defendant] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence and produced at the trial”
    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.