Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Wash. 2d 145 - State v. Harris

91 Wash. 2d 145 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
December 2007
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 64 Wash. App. 410 - State v. Walton (1992), State v. Gregory (2006)

38 state decisions

2001978198019902000decided

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 Roviaro v. United States · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Henry v. Mississippi

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.

  1. “'is relevant and helpful to the defense . . . or is essential to a fair determination of a cause”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The preferred method for [ascertaining whether disclosure of the informant’s identity is relevant and helpful to the defense, or essential to a fair determination of the cause] without precluding the rights of either the state or the defendant is for the court to hold an in camera session at which the judge hears the informer’s testimony and applies the Roviaro standard.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors.”
    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.