State v. Peeples’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1972 · most notably 49 Wash. 2d 66 - State v. Case (1956), 50 Wash. 2d 740 - State v. Collins (1957)
36 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 State v. Melvern · State v. Duncan · People v. Hess · State v. Armstrong · Coffey v. Seattle Electric Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The connection in which these remarks were made [the remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury] is not preserved in the record, but even dissociated from context, they evince an argumentative character and are not such expressions of individual opinion of the appellant’s guilt, independent of the testimony of the case, as to constitute misconduct. State v. Armstrong, 37 Wash. 51 , 79 Pac. 490 ; State v. Marion, 68 Wash. 675 , 124 Pac. 125 ; People v. Hess, 85 Mich. 128 , 48 N. W. 181 ; People v. Welch, 80 Mich. 616 , 45 N. W. 482 . While intemperate assertions of opinion not based upon any evidence will never be tolerated, it is none the less in the interest of a sound public policy that prosecuting officers be permitted a reasonable latitude in argumentative deduction from the evidence. That is all that these remarks upon their face purport. They do not constitute prejudicial error.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ragan · State v. Evans
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.