8 Wash. App. 180 - State v. Odom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “[Ojn November 24, 1970, the defendant went to the Tacoma offices of the Department of Employment Security to make his weekly report in support of his application for unemployment compensation benefits. While there, he objected to filling out a particular form and to reporting to the adjudication section. After having been told by the supervisor of benefits to complete the form and return with it the next week, and after having expressed his dissatisfaction with that procedure in an angry fashion, he left the office only to return within a half hour. Upon his return, he approached the supervisor’s desk, declared that he was tired of being pushed around, and announced an intention to settle this matter once and for all. At that time he was carrying a holstered .44 caliber magnum pistol in his left hand. He grasped the pistol in his right hand, pointed it at the supervisor and fired twice. On one occasion the projectile pierced through the supervisor’s left lower chest, exiting to the right of the lumbar area of the spine. As a result of this gunshot wound, the supervisor suffered permanent paralysis of both lower extremities together with other permanent and incapacitating internal injuries. After firing the pistol, he reloaded it, left the office by a rear exit and returned to his automobile in a nearby alley. In the meantime, police had been summoned. Two patrolmen approached in a “paddy wagon” and noticed the defendant sitting in his vehicle. The patrolman driver emerged fro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 83 Wash. 2d 541 - State v. Odom

2. “When the record discloses an error in an instruction given on behalf of the party in whose favor the verdict was returned, the error is presumed to have been prejudicial, and to furnish ground for reversal, unless it affirmatively appears that it was harmless. . . . A harmless error is an error which is trivial, or formal, or merely academic, and was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and in no way affected the final outcome of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Wash. 2d 221 - State v. Wanrow

3. “A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence . . . admits the truth of the evidence of the party against whom the challenge ... is made and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from such evidence, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most strongly against the challenger . . . and in the light most favorable to the opposing party. State v. Palmer, 1 Wn. App. 152 , 459 P.2d 812 (1969); State v. McDaniels, 30 Wn.2d 76 , 190 P.2d 705 (1948).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 16 Wash. App. 519 - State v. Trasvina