69 Wash. 2d 664 - State v. Galbreath’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
1 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 122 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Halstien (1993), 81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n (1972)
1 district · 45 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Harriss · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Baggett v. Bullitt
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a lascivious exhibition of those private parts of the person which instinctive modesty, human decency, or common propriety require shall be customarily kept covered in the presence of others.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In our view, further and more detailed legislative delineation of the particular misconduct [prohibited by the statute] ... is neither dictated by any flux in social values nor otherwise constitutionally required. We are satisfied that any person of common understanding, contemplating a lewd exhibition of the private parts of his or her person before a child under the age of 15 years, need not guess nor speculate as to the proscription and penalties of the statute as it is presently written.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Such offenses are rarely if ever committed under circumstances permitting knowledge and observation by persons other than the accused and the complaining witness, and not all such offenses are otherwise capable of corroboration. It would, therefore, be unrealistic and unreasonable to require proof that could not be procured, particularly where the testimony of the complaining witness is direct and positive as to all essential elements of the crime charged.”
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.