Stiley v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Swartz v. KPMG LLP (2007), Stiley v. Block (1996)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 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 114 Wash. 2d 907 - Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. Kallevig · 100 Wash. 2d 581 - Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance · 84 Wash. 2d 239 - King v. City of Seattle · 119 Wash. 2d 251 - Hizey v. Carpenter · 110 Wash. 2d 415 - Hoffer v. State
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) representation of an existing fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff; (6) plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; (7) plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and (9) damages suffered by the plaintiff.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Instruction 10 A fiduciary duty from one person to another means that the fiduciary owes the highest duty of fidelity and good faith to the other person. This court has found, as a matter of law, that defendant Edward Block had a fiduciary duty to plaintiff Joseph Stiley. This court has also found that defendant Patrick Stiley had a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, Joseph Stiley. Instruction 20 I have found as a matter of law that both Edward Block and Patrick Stiley owed to Joseph Stiley the duty to exercise that degree of skill, care and learning expected of a reasonably prudent attorney in the State of Washington in the same or similar circumstances at the time of the transaction in question. Failure to exercise such skill, care and learning is negligence. Instruction 22 I have found as a matter of law that the May 25, 1984 letter from Patrick Stiley to Edward Block which contained the check constituted escrow, or closing, instructions and, for purposes of this transaction, Edward Block was the escrow, or closing, agent.[ [59] ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stiley v. Block“that under the agreement Petitioner Stiley was to receive one deed of trust giving him a first lien position as secured creditor on only seven lots, lots 18 through 24. [32] In support of this position, Mr. Webb read a letter he sent to Webbco's attorney, Respondent Block, about the middle of May 1984, which stated Petitioner Stiley would get a deed of trust on the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stiley v. Block
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.