State v. Beaver’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
August 2000
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corporation · State v. McKinley · State v. Quick · 6 Wash. App. 216 - State v. Deaver · State v. Gardner
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our Supreme Court has recognized that the subject matter of a phone call can serve as a circumstantial basis to show the identity of the caller. Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corporation, 444 S.W.2d 396, 397 (Mo. banc 1969). In criminal cases, this rule has been used to identify the defendant as a participant in a telephone conversation when the defendant discusses facts which most likely only he would know. See, State v. Deaver, 6 Wash.App. 216 , 491 P.2d 1363 (1971), 79 A.L.R.3d 79 , 174-76 (1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Edwards
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.