State v. Cloud’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2014
7 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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Thorne · State v. Thorne · 39 Wash. 2d 191 - Power, Inc. v. Huntley · 110 Wash. 2d 738 - State v. Gonzalez
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] witness in a trial who is “fully acquainted with its character and object,” and “interested in its results” may be collaterally estopped from bringing a later claim on the same issue. But Washington courts clearly hold that this doctrine may be used only where there is “some sense that the separation of the suits was the product of some manipulation or tactical maneuvering, such as when the nonparty knowingly declined the opportunity to intervene but presents no valid reason for doing so.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“undercut the most fundamental value of the attorney-client relationship for future criminal defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mendez
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.