green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.7 score
“machine-gun repetition”
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cosby
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Thompkins, 271 Kan. 324, 335 , 21 P.3d 997 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McKettrick
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967), reh. den., 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pusyka
In a criminal case, however, we have held that extrajudicial communication “raises a presumption of prejudice to defendant and the state has the burden of establishing that the comments are harmless.” Carmody, 471 A.2d at 1366 ; see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 , reh. denied, 386 U. S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moreno
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); United States v. Remai, 19 M.J. 229 (C.M.A.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Arnold
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
United States ex rel. Sanders v. Lane
See Chapman v. United States, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lane
See Chapman v. United States, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Bailey v. State
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. den. 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kwan Fai Mak
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 , reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 (1967); State v. Johnson, 71 Wn.2d 239, 244-45 , 427 P.2d 705 (1967). [119] See RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c). [120] See State v. Griffith, 52 Wn.2d 721, 732 , 328 P.2d 897 (1958); RAP 2.5. [121] See In re Lile, 100 Wn.2d 224, 228 , 668 P.2d 581 (1983); Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , reh'g denied, 444 U.S. 887 , 62 L.Ed.2d 121 , 100 S.Ct. 186 (1979). [122] See State v. Quinlivan, 81 Wn.2d 124, 130 , 499 P.2d…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Crom
See Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967), reh'g denied 386 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 243 .
cited
Cited "see"
Thompson v. State
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Patrick C. Remigio, A/K/A Joe Cuervo
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); United States v. Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 1353 (10th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Robinson v. McGinnis
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gonzalez
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carmody
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Mondo
See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , rehearing denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert L. Pinkney
See In re Winship, supra, n. 7, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 19 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Motley
See Chapman, v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. den. 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Lofton v. State
(2×)
See Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 , rehearing denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 .
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Timmons
See Chapman v. California (1967), 386 US 18 ( 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 ), reh den (1967), 386 US 987 ( 87 S Ct 1283 , 18 L Ed 2d *645 241); Harrington v. California (1969), 395 US 250 ( 89 S Ct 1726 , 23 L Ed 2d 284 ); People v. Wavie Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 291 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John C. Barnett, United States of America v. Lee Fred McInturff
See Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 243 (1967). 26 Here the automobile had not been moved from the situs of the arrest and the Appellants were just being taken away. 8 In the cases holding a search as not being incident to an arrest, the arresting officers had gone to the station house and returned to the scene of the arrest to search, 9 had conducted searches in areas not within the immediate control of appellant, 10 or larger time lapses had occurred between the arrest and search. 11 Although the …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Barnett
See Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 243 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States ex rel. Anderson v. Bundle
See Peters v. New York, prob. juris, noted, 386 U.S. 980 , 87 S.Ct. 1291 , 18 L.Ed.2d 228 (1967); State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122 , 214 N.E.2d 114 , cert. granted 387 U.S. 929 , 87 S.Ct. 2050 , 18 L.Ed.2d 989 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rundle
See Peters v. New York, prob. juris. noted, 386 U.S. 980 , 87 S.Ct. 1291 , 18 L.Ed.2d 228 (1967); State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122 , 214 N.E.2d 114 , cert. granted 387 U.S. 929 , 87 S.Ct. 2050 , 18 L.Ed.2d 989 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); See also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 , 684 (1986) (constitutional errors may be harmless "in terms of their effect on the factfinding process at trial ") (emphasis added); See also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 24, 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 711 overturned on other grounds, r'hrg denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (error is harmless if, beyond a reasonable doubt, it "did not contribute to the verdict obtained") (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Mateo
See also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 24 , ( 87 S.Ct. 824 [827-828, 828], 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)), rehearing denied 386 U.S. 987 , ( 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ) [1967].
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mundy
See, e.g., Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 243 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Derifield
(2×)
Ross, 456 U.S. at 808 , 102 S.Ct. at 2164 (quoting Carroll, 267 U.S. at 154-54 , 45 S.Ct. at 285 ); see also Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 62 , 87 S.Ct. 788, 791 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (“‘[t]he relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable’” (quoting United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 66 , 70 S.Ct. 430, 435 , 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950))), reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 243 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Harpool
(See People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584 ; see also Chapman v. California (1966) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ], rehg. den. 386 U.S. 987 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 241 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 ].) Ill Defendant’s next challenge rests with the sufficiency of the evidence.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson v. Smith
See, e.g., Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , rehearing den., 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), on remand, 577 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. den., 440 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 1242 , 59 L.Ed.2d 471 (1979); United States v. Williams, 523 F.2d 407, 410 (2d Cir. 1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Mobley
See, also, Chapman v. California (1967), 386 US 18, 23, 24 , ( 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 ), rehearing denied 386 US 987 ( 87 S Ct 1283 , 18 L Ed 2d 241 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Taylor
See, also, Chapman v California (1967), 386 US 18, 23, 24 ( 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 ) rehearing denied, 386 US 987 ( 87 S Ct 1283 , 18 L Ed 2d 241 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Robinson
(2×)
See, also, Chapman v. California (1967), 386 US 18, 23, 24 ( 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 ), rehearing denied 386 US 987 ( 87 S Ct 1283 , 18 L Ed 2d 241 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guillermo Arriagada
See, also, Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. den. 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ; Ware v. United States (7th Cir. 1967) 376 F.2d 717, 719 , Note 6; Bacino v. United States (10th Cir. 1963) 316 F.2d 11, 14 , cert. den. 375 U.S. 831 , 84 S.Ct. 76 , 11 L.Ed.2d 62 ; Walker v. United States (1963) 116 U.S.App.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Wichman
See, also, Chapman v. California (1967), 386 US 18, 23, 24 ( 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 ), rehearing denied 386 US 987 ( 87 S Ct 1283 , 18 L Ed 2d 241 ).
Berger
v.
New York
v.
New York
No. 615.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 27, 1967.
Ct. App. N. Y. (Certiorari granted, 385 U. S. 967.) Motion of New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to participate in oral argument, as amicus curiae, denied.