106 Wash. 2d 443 - Smith v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 118 Wash. 2d 801 - Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley (1992), State v. Thomas (2004)
3 federal appellate · 105 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 74 Wash. 2d 25 - Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co. · 97 Wash. 2d 562 - State v. Loewen · 102 Wash. 2d 30 - Eastlake Construction Co. v. Hess · 64 Cal. 2d 801 - Honey v. Henry's Franchise Leasing Corp. of America · 96 Wash. 2d 874 - Golberg v. Sanglier
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessarily presupposes that the first purchasers were free to dispose of the property following the second purchasers’ breach, so that they would be able to realize its market value. Such was not the case here. Rather, the second purchasers’ breach of contract caused the first purchasers’ entire interest in the property to be forfeited back to the original owners. As a result, the “value” of the property to the first purchasers was reduced to zero; its market value became immaterial. Under these circumstances, therefore, the first purchasers may recover as damages an amount equal to that portion of the purchase price ... still owing to them under the contract.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e presume from the absence of further findings in that regard that second purchasers [who had the burden of proof] failed to sustain their burden.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Welfare of AB
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.