114 Wash. 2d 550 - Kirk v. Moe’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably 122 Wash. 2d 299 - Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993), 119 Wash. 2d 452 - In Re F.D. Processing, Inc. (1992)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 105 Wash. 2d 381 - Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. · 110 Wash. 2d 355 - Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc. · 98 Wash. 2d 708 - Glover v. Tacoma General Hospital · 110 Wash. 2d 695 - Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley · 110 Wash. 2d 643 - Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Cox
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Contribution is available to a person who enters into a settlement with a claimant only (a) if the liability of the person against whom contribution is sought has been extinguished by the settlement and (b) to the extent that the amount paid in settlement was reasonable at the time of the settlement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kottler v. State · Kottler v. State“The holding of Glover must be read in light of KCW 4.22-.060(2) which apphes directly to the effect of settlements on nonsettling defendants. That subsection provides: A release, covenant not to sue, covenant not to enforce judgment, or similar agreement entered into by a claimant and a person liable discharges that person from all liability for contribution, but it does not discharge any other persons hable upon the same claim unless it so provides. Thus the presumption is that TAMS was not released by SWTs agreements with the other defendants unless this case falls within the narrow limits of Glover. It does not. Glover was a case of respondeat superior. SWTs claims [against some defendants] are distinct and separate from its claims against TAMS.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`The settlement of a claimant's entire claim should be strongly encouraged'”
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.