116 Wash. 2d 584 - French v. Gabriel’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Lybbert v. Grant County, State of Wash. (2000), 141 Wash. 2d 29 - Lybbert v. Grant County (2000)
55 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 103 Wash. 2d 52 - Short v. Demopolis · 87 Wash. 2d 400 - Peters v. Simmons · 41 Wash. App. 248 - In Re the Marriage of Maddix · 24 Wash. App. 112 - Raymond v. Fleming · 51 Wash. App. 731 - Crouch v. Friedman
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`until the client discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts which give rise to his or her cause of action.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Raymond’s counsel repeatedly asked for an answer to the complaint, which requests were not acceded to, and defense counsel just as repeatedly asked Raymond’s counsel for additional time to file an answer, which requests were acceded to. On January 23, 1978, Raymond moved for an order of default or in the alternative for a trial assignment and for an order compelling answers to interrogatories which he had served on defense counsel on October 5, 1977. Defense counsel again asked for more time and Raymond agreed to a continuance until February 24, 1978. Upon motion of defense counsel, the hearing was continued for a second time until March 10, 1978.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[O]nce [the defendant] properly preserved his defense by pleading it in his answer, he is not precluded from asserting it by proceeding with discovery. . . . [Plaintiff] seeks to distinguish Crouch , contending that discovery was not necessary to establish [defendant’s] defense of insufficient service of process. Crouch is not distinguishable on this basis.”
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.