73 Wash. 2d 616 - State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably 88 Wash. 2d 221 - State v. Wanrow (1977), 95 Wash. 2d 898 - State v. Seagull (1981)
127 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 63 Cal. 2d 74 - People v. Holford · 60 Wash. 2d 638 - State v. Michaels · 27 Wash. 2d 336 - State v. Britton · State v. Gaines · State v. Jordan
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * When the appellate court is unable to say from the record before it whether the defendant would or would not have been convicted but for the error committed in the trial court, then the error may not be deemed harmless, and the defendant's right to a fair trial requires that the verdict be set aside and that he be granted a new trial."”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage““Usually, however, such knowledge must be derived from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the accident. (Citation omitted.) Yet the driver who leaves the scene of the accident seldom possesses actual knowledge of injury; by leaving the scene he forecloses any opportunity to acquire such actual knowledge. Hence a requirement of actual knowledge of injury would realistically render the statute useless. We therefore believe that criminal liability attaches to a driver who knowingly leaves the scene of an accident if he actually knew of the injury or if he knew that the accident was of such a nature that one would reasonably anticipate that it resulted in injury to a person.” (Footnote omitted.) 45 Cal.Rptr. at 171 , 403 P.2d at 427 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kimoktoak v. State · State v. Vela“The rule is now definitely established in this state that the verdict of the jury in a criminal case will be set •aside and a new trial granted to the defendant, because •of an error occurring during the trial of the case, only when such error may be designated as prejudicial. . . . A prejudicial error may be defined as one which affects or presumptively affects the final results of the trial, [citation omitted] When the appellate court is unable to say from the record before it whether the defendant would or would not have been convicted but for the error committed in the trial court, then the error may not not be deemed harmless, . . .”
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.