Vit v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Vaughn v. State (1998), English v. State (1999)
30 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 National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Martin v. State · Martinez v. State · 41 Wash. App. 495 - Byerly v. Madsen · Hopkinson v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The only purpose of the examination is to select a panel of jurors who will fairly and impartially hear the evidence and render a just verdict. (2) The court shall not permit counsel or a pro se defendant to attempt to precondition prospective jurors to a particular result, comment on the personal lives and families of the parties or their attorneys, nor question jurors concerning the pleadings, the law, the meaning of words, or the comfort of jurors. (3) In voir dire examination counsel or a pro se defendant shall not: (A) Ask questions of an individual juror that can be asked of the panel or a group of jurors collectively; (B) Ask questions answered in a juror questionnaire except to explain an answer; (C) Repeat a question asked and answered; (D) Instruct the jury on the law or argue the case; or (E) Ask a juror what the juror's verdiet might be under any hypothetical cireum-stance. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in subsections 24(c)(3)(A)-(B), counsel or a pro se party shall be permitted during voir dire examination to preview portions of the evidence from the case in a non-argumentative manner when a preview of the evidence would help prospective jurors better understand the context and reasons for certain lines of voir dire questioning.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson v. Hamblin · Vena v. State“Due to the tension between the fundamental liberty of familial association and the compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of children, application of statutes for termination of parental rights is a matter for strict scrutiny. . . . As part of this strict scrutiny standard, a case for termination of parental rights must be established by clear and convincing evidence. . . . Clear and convincing evidence is that kind of proof that would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable. . . . Rigorous though this standard may be, we apply our traditional principles of evidentiary review when a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination. . . . Thus, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, assuming all favorable evidence to be true while discounting conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he only inhibition regarding the discretion of the trial court is that it must be exercised subject to the essential demands of fairness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Law v. State
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.