74 Wash. 2d 413 - State v. Franks’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 1990 · most notably 114 Wash. 2d 613 - State v. Swan (1990), 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams (1981)
25 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on 73 Wash. 2d 533 - State v. Dana · 71 Wash. 2d 239 - State v. Johnson · 67 Wash. 2d 278 - Brown v. General Motors Corp. · 70 Wash. 2d 7 - State v. Saylors · 38 Wash. 2d 446 - State v. Rio
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]hat to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must appear (1) that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; and (5) that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A new trial will not be granted on [the basis of newly discovered evidence] unless the moving party demonstrates that the evidence (1) will probably change the result of the trial; (2) was discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In any prosecution for theft, it shall be a sufficient defense that the property or service was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title made in good faith, even though the claim be untenable.”
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.