71 Wash. 2d 512 - Warren v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams (1981), State v. Demery (2001)
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 49 Wash. 2d 66 - State v. Case · 43 Wash. 2d 766 - Bradshaw v. City of Seattle · State v. Leuch · 42 Wash. 2d 878 - Billington v. Schaal · 67 Wash. 2d 45 - State v. Suleski
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.
“"While an arrest or citation might be said to evidence the on-the-spot opinion of the traffic officer as to respondent's negligence, this would not render the testimony admissible. It is not proper to permit a witness to give his opinion on questions of fact requiring no expert knowledge, when the opinion involves the very matter to be determined by the jury, and the facts on which the witness founds his opinion are capable of being presented to the jury. Johnson v. Caughren, 55 Wash. 125 , 104 P. 170 [1909]; Bruenn v. North Yakima School Dist. [ No. 7], 101 Wash. 374 , 172 P. 569 [1918]. The question of whether respondent was negligent in driving in too close proximity to appellant's vehicle falls into this category. Therefore, the witness' opinion on such matter, whether it be offered from the witness stand or implied from the traffic citation which he issued, would not be acceptable as opinion evidence."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Respondent wife argues that, since appellant did not make objection to her counsel’s conduct at the time it occurred or ask the trial court to declare a mistrial or instruct the jury to disregard counsel’s statement, she has waived her right to claim that it constituted reversible error which entitled her to a new trial. In support of this argument, respondent wife cites Nelson v. Martinson, 52 Wn.2d 684 , 328 P.2d 703 (1958), which supports her contention as to the general rule applicable to such a situation. However, there is a well recognized exception to that rule where the misconduct is so flagrant and prejudicial that no instruction to disregard it would have cured it.”
2 later decisions 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.