8 Wash. App. 481 - State v. Haga’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably State v. Stenson (1997), State v. Finch (1999)
53 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Hoffa v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“usually the husband or the wife will attempt to assist .... He was very calm and cool about it. And he didn’t attempt to assist us. Usually a husband or wife usually is in the way when you are trying to revive them. And he offered no assistance in helping me whatsoever.” Haga, 8 Wn. App. at 490 . Haga held this statement was wrongfully admitted as it”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Out-of-court admissions by a party, although hearsay, may be admissible against the party if they are relevant. 5 R. Meisenholder, Wash. Prac. § 421 et seq. (1965); C. McCormick, Evidence § 239 (1954). However, if an out-of-court admission by a party is self-serving, and in the sense that it tends to aid his case, and is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, then such statement is not admissible under the admission exception to the hearsay rule. State v. King, 71 Wn.2d 573, 577 , 429 P.2d 914 (1967); State v. Johnson, 60 Wn.2d 21, 31 , 371 P.2d 611 (1962); 5 R. Meisenholder, Wash. Prac. § 381 at 380 (1965).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pavlik · State v. Finch““overcome the absence of any statute of limitations concerning the crime of murder in the first degree. We hold that the showing of actual prejudice must be sufficient to overcome the legislative intent expressed by the absence of a limitation on prosecution for such crime, before the prosecution should be forbidden.” Id. 507 P.2d at 165 .”
2 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.