State v. Williamson’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited
25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · 125 Wash. 2d 570 - State v. Gentry · 119 Wash. 2d 401 - State v. Strauss · 114 Wash. 2d 77 - State v. Rempel
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jurors having been examined as to their qualifications, first by the plaintiff and then by the defendant, and passed for cause, the peremptory challenges shall be conducted as follows, to wit: The plaintiff may challenge one, and then the defendant may challenge one, and so alternately until the peremptory challenges shall be exhausted. The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“After prospective jurors have been passed for cause, peremptory challenges shall be exercised alternately first by the prosecution then by each defendant until the peremptory challenges are exhausted or the jury accepted. Acceptance of the jury as presently constituted shall not waive any remaining peremptory challenges to jurors subsequently called.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he standard of review is again abuse of discretion. Unfortunately, application of this standard to the excited utterance exception has become a bit clouded by two recent decisions, one by the Supreme Court, State v. Brown, and one from this Division, State v. Sharp.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis
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.