75 Wash. App. 808 - State v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 125 Wash. 2d 847 - State v. Lough (1995), 82 Wash. App. 688 - State v. Krause (1996)
2 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Ungar v. Sarafite · Morris v. Slappy · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · California v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Bottoson v. Florida
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] material issue of accident arises where the defense is denial and the defendant affirmatively asserts that the victim’s injuries occurred by happenstance or misfortune. ... It is undisputed that Roth’s defense was that [his fourth wife’s] drowning was accidental—i.e., that no crime occurred. Clearly, then, evidence of a prior incident in which Roth married, insured, and murdered a woman would be highly relevant to a crucial aspect of the State's case: the need to rebut Roth’s claim of accident and to establish an intentional killing. Thus, as the trial court concluded, the evidence was highly relevant as to a material assertion of the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“his mother was not in attendance at trial, and he offered no other evidence to support this claim. 2 RP at 26. In addition, the prosecutor argued that, based on his knowledge of the case, Price did not have the financial means to hire an attorney. ¶ 31 Second, Price did not have other competent counsel prepared to go to trial. When questioned as to whether he had taken any steps to retain a new attorney, Price informed the court that he”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Price“(1) whether the court had granted previous continuances at the defendant’s request; (2) whether the defendant had some legitimate cause for dissatisfaction with counsel, even though it fell short of likely incompetent representation; (3) whether available counsel is prepared to go to trial; and (4) whether the denial of the motion is likely to result in identifiable prejudice to the defendant’s case of a material or substantial nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hampton
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.