Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Evans

96 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
4
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably State v. Pirtle (1995), 105 Wash. 2d 692 - State v. Kwan Fai Mak (1986)

57 state decisions

2901981199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Bumper v. North Carolina

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

  1. “[t]he first, the contribution test, focuses on whether the error contributed to the verdict, that is, whether the evidence was likely to have been considered by the jury in arriving at its decision.... The second standard focuses on the remainder of the pie and permits a judicial finding of harmless error if the untainted evidence ... is so overwhelming that in the judgment of the reviewing court conviction was inevitable.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he use, for impeachment purposes, of defendant's silence following receipt of Miranda warnings is fundamentally unfair and therefore violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the giving of the warnings implicitly assures defendant that silence will carry no penalty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An error in instructions is harmless if it 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 · from the majority

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.