13 Wash. App. 755 - Williams v. Pierce County’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 63 Wash. 2d 664 - Lenci v. City of Seattle · 82 Wash. 2d 549 - Department of Revenue v. Hoppe · 79 Wash. 2d 417 - Murphy v. Campbell Investment Co. · 65 Wash. 2d 827 - Krystad v. Lau · 62 Wash. 2d 319 - Alderwood Water District v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But it should be remembered that the fundamental objective in construing ordinances and statutes is to ascertain the legislative (in this case, the Board of County Commissioners') intent. ... In doing this, if possible all provisions should be harmonized; no words or phrases should be rendered superfluous or meaningless. . . . But if there are two conflicting provisions, then that which is more clearly expressed should control. . . . And the general spirit or purpose of the statute will prevail over expressed but inept language. . . . Importantly, unreasonable or illogical consequences should be avoided. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Frequently it is held that where a statute, particularly one of doubtful meaning, is amended by a subsequent enactment so as to make it more certain, the subsequent amendment is a strong indicator of the legislative intention with respect to the original provision.”
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.