Goodwin v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 117 Wash. 2d 37 - Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co. · 119 Wash. 2d 724 - McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Allstate Ins. Co. v. Peasley · 113 Wash. 2d 91 - Grange Insurance Co. v. Brosseau · Flint v. Universal Machine 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment the appellate court will consider only evidence and issues called to the attention of the trial court. The order granting or denying the motion for summary judgment shall designate the documents and other evidence called to the attention of the trial court before the order on summary judgment was entered. Documents or other evidence called to the attention of the trial court but not designated in the order shall be made a part of the record by supplemental order of the trial court or by stipulation of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodwin v. Wright“(1) You; (2) Others trading under your name; or (3) A person or organization whose business or assets you have acquired; and b. Containers (other than vehicles), materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such goods or products. "Your product" includes warranties or representations made at any time with respect to the fitness, quality, durability or performance of any of the items included in a. and b. above. "Your product" does not include vending machines or other property rented to or located for the use of others but not sold. The policy defines "Your work" as:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodwin v. Wright“the work is incomplete as a matter of law and the exclusion does not apply. We find Goodwin's authorities inapposite or unpersuasive, and reject his argument because it would render the productscompleted operations exclusion, as well as the separate coverage for this hazard, meaningless. Washington courts have not considered whether a negligent omission or act renders work incomplete for purposes of the completed operations exclusion in a CGL policy. Nationally, as a general rule, a contract or operation is deemed completed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodwin v. Wright
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.