Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 Wash. 2d 28 - State v. Peele

75 Wash. 2d 28 - State v. Peele’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably 93 Wash. 2d 268 - State v. Dupard (1980), 118 Wash. 2d 649 - State v. Collicott (1992)

33 state decisions

21019681970198019902000decided

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 Sealfon v. United States · Hoag v. State of New Jersey · Public Service Commission v. United States · 5 Wash. 2d 234 - State v. Barton · United States v. Burch

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

  1. “It has been long established that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do apply in criminal cases. See, Modern Status of Doctrine of Res Judicata in Criminal Cases, Annot., 9 A.L.R.3d 203 (1966). These doctrines, as applied to criminal cases, bar relitigation of issues actually determined by a former verdict and judgment. Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575 , 98 L. Ed. 180 , 68 Sup. Ct. 237 (1948); United States v. Burch, 294 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1961); State v. Barton, 5 Wn.2d 234 , 105 P.2d 63 (1940). The application of collateral estoppel in a criminal action is a 2-step operation: the first is to determine what issues were raised and resolved by the former judgment, and the second is to determine whether the issues raised and resolved in the former prosecution are identical to those sought to be barred in the subsequent action.”
    4 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.