13 Wash. App. 766 - Manning v. Loidhamer’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably 71 Wash. App. 120 - Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis (1993), 97 Wash. 2d 753 - Haner v. Quincy Farm Chemicals, Inc. (1982)
3 federal appellate · 45 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 8 Wash. 2d 93 - State Ex Rel. MacRi v. City of Bremerton · 70 Wash. 2d 915 - Sigman v. Stevens-Norton, Inc. · 64 Wash. 2d 191 - Armstrong Construction Co. v. Thomson · 60 Wash. 2d 880 - Wells v. Aetna Insurance · Curtley v. Security Savings Society
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a wrongful act or omission by A toward B; (2) such act or omission exposes or involves B in litigation with C; and (3) C was not connected with the initial transaction or event, viz., the wrongful act or omission of A toward B.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen the natural and proximate consequences of a wrongful act by defendant involve plaintiff in litigation with others, there may, as a general rule, be a recovery of damages for the reasonable expenses incurred in the litigation, including compensation for attorney's fees.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here the acts or omissions of a party to an agreement or event have exposed one to litigation by third persons — that is, to suit by persons not connected with the initial transaction or event — the allowance of attorney's fees may be a proper element of consequential damages. The fulcrum upon which the rule balances, then, is whether the action, for which attorney's fees are claimed as consequential damages, is brought or defended by third persons — that is, persons not privy to the contract, agreement or events through which the litigation arises.”
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.