Firth v. Lu’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman · 121 Wash. 2d 715 - Kruse v. Hemp · 62 Wash. 2d 645 - State Ex Rel. Washington State Finance Committee v. Martin · 94 Wash. 2d 255 - Klinke v. Famous Recipe Fried Chicken, Inc. · Weden v. San Juan County
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The transfer of stock was incidental; the real import of the transaction, as perceived by the parties, was the transfer of the right to possess and occupy the apartment unit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]ossession to take place on October 15, 1997.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is the nature of the rights the purchaser receives, not the classification of the corporation's assets, that determines whether the shares purchased represent an interest in real property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Firth v. Lu
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.