69 Wash. 2d 327 - State v. Eichman’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 1976
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Kwan · 58 Wash. 2d 816 - State v. La Porte · 42 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Emmanuel · 63 Wash. 2d 607 - State v. Vindhurst · 62 Wash. 2d 515 - In RE PETTIT v. Rhay
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The scope of cross-examination is peculiarly within the province of the trial judge. We will not disturb his determination of its boundaries unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. [Citing cases.] Since defendant introduced the issue, he cannot be heard to complain of the limited cross-examination permitted by the trial court. State v. King, 58 Wn. (2d) 77, 78, 360 P. (2d) 757 (1961).”
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.