Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 Wash. 2d 557 - State v. Hill

76 Wash. 2d 557 - State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
November 1998
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 1998

13 state decisions

801969197019801990decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 73 Wash. 2d 271 - State v. Davis · 64 Wash. 2d 445 - State v. Hoffman · State v. Miller · State v. Tyree

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

  1. “there would be no limit to the amount of force which a person could use in defending himself against such alleged peril.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The command of RCW 9.95.040 is unambiguous. When an information alleges “that [an] accused was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime,” and there is evidence to support the allegation, “the jury shall, if it find the defendant guilty, also find” by special verdict whether the accused was armed with a weapon, and if so, whether the weapon was “deadly” as that term is defined in RCW 9.95.040. We interpret RCW 9.95.015 and 9.95.040 to require the submission of the special interrogatory when the information charges that the accused was armed with a “deadly” weapon . . .”
    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.