Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 Wash. 2d 261 - Trimen Development Co. v. King County

124 Wash. 2d 261 - Trimen Development Co. v. King County’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably 131 Wash. 2d 640 - Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle (1997), Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS (2002)

57 state decisions

290199420002010decided

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 97 Wash. 2d 804 - Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County · 57 Wash. 2d 106 - City of Bellingham v. Schampera · 124 Wash. 2d 240 - Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell · 113 Wash. 2d 402 - R/L ASSOCIATES, INC. v. City of Seattle · 87 Wash. 2d 457 - City of Spokane v. Spokane Police Guild

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “reasonably necessary as a direct result of [the specific] development.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “fee in lieu of dedication is calculated based on zoning, projected population, and the assessed value of the land that would have been dedicated or reserved. [The county's] assessment of fees in lieu of dedication are specific to the site.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “`will not interpret a statute to deprive a municipality of the power to legislate on a particular subject unless that clearly is the legislative intent.'”
    2 later decisions 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.