Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Wash. App. 414 - State v. Miller

7 Wash. App. 414 - State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 95 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Coyle (1980), 20 Wash. App. 717 - State v. Gallo (1978)

28 state decisions

19019721980199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109

Relies on Ker v. State of California · Miller v. United States · Sabbath v. United States · 67 Cal. 2d 586 - People v. Gastelo · Keiningham v. United States

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

  1. “To make an arrest in criminal actions, the officer may break open any outer or inner door, or windows of a dwelling house or other building, or any other inclosure, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he be refused admittance.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) where the persons within already know of the officers’ authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justified in the belief that persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or (3) where those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside (be cause, for example, there has been a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers in the belief that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “We interpret Sabbath as approving the view “that the word ‘break’ as used in 18 U.S.C. § 3109 , means ‘enter without permission,’ ” and that, accordingly, entry may not be made by the police officer under the substantially similar RCW 10.31.040 without first announcing both identity and purpose of entry and demanding admission.”
    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.