126 Wash. 2d 370 - Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Easter’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2013
18 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 111 Wash. 2d 256 - Folsom v. County of Spokane · 106 Wash. 2d 760 - Folsom v. County of Spokane · 108 Wash. 2d 26 - Sahalee Country Club, Inc. v. Board of Tax Appeals · 16 Wash. 2d 459 - Ozette Railway Co. v. Grays Harbor County · 86 Wash. 2d 7 - Chief Seattle Properties, Inc. v. Kitsap 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) if a taxpayer overcomes the presumption of correctness on a specific value, the standard of proof shifts to preponderance of the evidence for all contested issues related to that value; and (2) if a taxpayer overcomes the presumption on the assessor's overall approach or technique, i.e., invalidates the technique, the standard of proof shifts to a preponderance of the evidence for all issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The market value of a plant in compliance with environmental regulations is greater than an identical plant not in compliance. This difference in value measures a form of obsolescencea noncomplying plant is obsolete compared to an otherwise identical counterpart.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Incurable functional obsolescence is `Functional obsolescence that results from structural deficiencies or superadequacies that the prudent purchaser or owner would not be justified in replacing, adding, or removing, because the cost of effecting a cure would be greater than the anticipated increase in utility resulting from the replacement, addition or removal.' (Footnotes omitted.) B. Boyce & W. Kinnard, Jr., APPRAISING REAL PROPERTY 298-99 (1984) (quoting REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL TERMINOLOGY 114 (Byrl N. Boyce ed., rev. ed.1981)).”
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.