103 Wash. 2d 542 - State v. Schwab’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 166 Wash. 2d 27 - Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington (2009), Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson (1994)
28 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
Relies on 81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n · Denham v. National Labor Relations Board · 94 Wash. 2d 40 - Anhold v. Daniels · 81 Wash. 2d 740 - Seaboard v. WILLIAMS'NW CHRYSLER · 86 Wash. 2d 331 - Lightfoot v. MacDonald
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a marked difference between the judicial and legislative processes of inclusion and exclusion of activities under the Consumer Protection Act. In the legislative process, the people engaged in the activity sought to be specifically included within the act have the full opportunity to be heard and to have their particular problems considered at legislative hearings. Furthermore, the merits of any such proposed inclusion are subject to debate and amendment in legislative committees and on the floor of the respective houses of the Legislature. The judicial process, on the other hand, does not always provide equivalent opportunities. In the present case, for example, the State Attorney General’s Office represents the interests of the public (and indirectly the rights of the individual tenants), whereas the landlord appearing pro se represents himself in a case which potentially affects every person in the state who rents out or ever will rent out one or more dwelling units.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The legislature finds that the practices governed by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Any violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair and deceptive act or practice and unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of RCW 19.86.020. Remedies provided by chapter 19.86 RCW are cumulative and not exclusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Senate was well aware of the effect of what it was doing when it turned down the amendment extending the [CPA] to violations of the [RLTA]”
1 later decision 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.