State v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2024
10 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 105 Wash. 2d 175 - State v. Ammons · State v. Sanwick · 119 Wash. 2d 167 - State v. Johnson · McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co. · State v. Ford
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Authentication is a threshold requirement designed to assure that evidence is what it purports to be. 5C Karl B. Tegland, Washington Practice: Evidence Law and Practice § 900.2, at 175; § 901.2, at 181-82 (4th ed. 1999). The State satisfies ER 901, which requires that documents be authenticated or identified, if it introduces sufficient proof to permit a reasonable juror to find in favor of authenticity or identification. State v. Danielson, 37 Wn. App. 469, 471 , 681 P.2d 260 (1984). “Rule 901 does not limit the type of evidence allowed to authenticate a document. It merely requires some evidence which is sufficient to support a finding that the evidence in question is what its proponent claims it to be.” United States v. Jimenez Lopez, 873 F.2d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1989).[ 6 ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams · State v. Bashaw“[t]he party offering the evidence must make a prima facie showing consisting of proof that is sufficient “to permit a reasonable juror to find in favor of authenticity or identification.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Young · State v. Bashaw
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.