Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 Wash. 2d 343 - State v. Parmenter

74 Wash. 2d 343 - State v. Parmenter’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
6
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 1997

23 state decisions

1601968197019801990decided

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 13 Wash. 2d 673 - In Re the Welfare of Hudson · 13 Wash. 2d 542 - State v. Severns · 68 Wash. 2d 748 - State v. Russell · State v. Holedger · State v. Brunn

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

  1. “"To convict the defendant of the crime of Assault in the Second Degree as charged in Count I each of the following elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: "(1) That on or about the 16th day of October, 1977, the defendant: " (a) Knowingly assaulted Kaluna Farrington [sic] with a weapon or thing likely to produce bodily harm; or ”(b) Knowingly inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Kaluna Farrington [sic] with or without a weapon; or "(c) With criminal negligence caused physical injury to Kaluna Farrington [sic] by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm. ” (2) That the acts occurred in Kitsap County, Washington. " (3) That the evidence does not establish legal self-defense. "If you find from the evidence that elements (2), (3) and either (l)(a), (l)(b) or (l)(c) have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, bearing in mind that (l)(a), (l)(b) and (l)(c) are alternatives and only one need be proven, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty as to Count I. "On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty as to Count I."”
    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.