Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Bartholomew

98 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Bartholomew’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Wood v. Bartholomew (1995), 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992)

14 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

41019821990200020102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia

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

  1. “Having in mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he prosecution [is not] permitted to produce any evidence it cares to so long as it points to some element of rebuttal no matter how slight or incidental____ The court must balance the extent to which the evidence tends to rebut defendant’s mitigating information against the extent to which the evidence is otherwise prejudicial to the defendant. Only if the rebuttal value ... outweighs the prejudicial effect should the evidence be admitted.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “In deciding the question posed by RCW 10.95.060(4), the jury ... may consider any relevant factors, including but not limited to the following:”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.