100 Wash. 2d 793 - State v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Solid State Systems Corp. (1985), 108 Wash. 2d 38 - Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (2000)
4 federal appellate · 25 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15C · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is, however, the intent of the legislature that this act shall not be construed to prohibit acts or practices which are reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business or which are not injurious to the public interest, nor be construed to authorize those acts or practices which unreasonably restrain trade or are unreasonable per se.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“motivated by legitimate business concerns”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“most of the State's opening and reply briefs are dedicated to challenging the findings of fact as well as reinterpreting the evidence presented at trial. This court is not a trier of fact, however. Where there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact, we will not disturb them on appeal. Even where the evidence conflicts, a reviewing court must determine only whether the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party supports the challenged findings. After reading the transcript of proceedings, we find that although we might have interpreted the evidence differently had we been the trier of fact, the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.