82 Wash. 2d 746 - Halverson v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 109 Wash. 2d 235 - Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc. (1987), 41 Wash. App. 495 - Byerly v. Madsen (1985)
38 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 60 Wash. 2d 836 - Gardner v. Malone · State v. Parker · State v. Burke · 73 Wash. 2d 206 - State v. Gobin · Lyberg v. Holz
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The analysis of affidavits concerning jury misconduct and the resolution of the effect of juror discussion of matters outside the record is the province of the trial judge. As stated in [ Halverson v. Anderson, 82 Wn.2d 746 , 513 P.2d 827 (1973)] on page 752: The effect which this evidence may have had upon the jury was a question which was properly determined in the sound discretion of the trial court which had observed all the witnesses in the trial proceedings and had in mind the evidence which had been presented. If the trial court had any doubt that the misconduct affected the verdict, it was obliged to resolve that doubt in favor of granting a new trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is for the court to say whether the remarks made by the juror . . . probably had a prejudicial effect upon the minds of the other jurors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, one juror stated to the other jurors certain matters of fact for which he vouched and which had not been introduced in the trial. His statement was an act capable of objective proof without probing the juror's mental processes. Any juror could testify to the fact of his making the statement, and another juror could deny that he made it, and it would then become a question of deciding which juror or jurors was worthy of belief.”
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.