70 Wash. 2d 27 - State v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably 77 Wash. 2d 27 - State v. Callahan (1969), 123 Wash. 2d 794 - State v. Staley (1994)
50 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 56 Wash. 2d 23 - Jones v. Hogan · 6 Wash. 2d 696 - State v. Davis · State v. Gottfreedson · 52 Wash. 2d 684 - Nelson v. Martinson · 69 Wash. 2d 264 - State v. Johnson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When possession was thus proved, it became a matter of defense, a burden resting on the appellant, to show to the satisfaction of the jury that his possession of the drug was either unwitting, or authorized by law, or acquired by lawful means in a lawful manner, or was otherwise excusable under the statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unless the misconduct of counsel in his opening statement is so flagrant, persistent and ill-intentioned, or the wrong inflicted thereby so obvious, and the prejudice resulting therefrom so marked and enduring, that corrective instructions or admonitions clearly could not neutralize their effect, any objection to such misconduct of counsel or error in the opening statement is waived by failure to make adequate timely objection and request for a corrective instruction or admonition. Nelson v. Martinson, 52 Wn.2d 684 , 328 P.2d 703 (1958); Jones v. Hogan, 56 Wn.2d 23 , 351 P.2d 153 (1960).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was on or about the date set forth in the information, in King County, Washington, in possession of the drug described in the information herein, then I instruct you that unless you find evidence to the contrary, the presumption arises that this possession of such drug was unlawful and the burden of showing that such drug was lawfully obtained and possessed by the defendant is a matter of defense to be proved by evidence sufficient to raise in your minds a reasonable doubt as to the unlawfulness of said defendant’s possession of such drug.”
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.