Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 Wash. 2d 700 - State v. Dixon

74 Wash. 2d 700 - State v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 112 Wash. 2d 193 - LaMon v. Butler (1989), 115 Wash. 2d 609 - State v. Dennison (1990)

32 state decisions

130196819701980199020002010decided

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 44 Wash. 2d 828 - State Ex Rel. Mauerman v. SUP'R CT. FOR THURSTON CTY. · 64 Wash. 2d 273 - McDaniel v. McDaniel · State ex rel. Sheehan v. Reynolds · State v. Holden · State ex rel. Beeler v. Smith

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

  1. “Under these statutes and under our decisions a party litigant is entitled, as a matter of right, to a change of judges upon the timely filing of a motion and affidavit of prejudice against a judge about to hear his cause or any substantial portion thereof on the merits. Such a motion and affidavit seasonably filed presents no question of fact or discretion. Prejudice is deemed to be established by the affidavit and the judge to whom it is directed is divested of authority to proceed further into the merits of the action.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding in a superior court, may establish such prejudice by motion, supported by affidavit that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced against such party or attorney, so that such party or attorney cannot, or believes that he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge ...”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No judge of a superior court of the state of Washington shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that said judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney, or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in such cause....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.