State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district · 9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 61 Wash. 2d 374 - Miller v. City of Tacoma · 65 Wash. 2d 677 - City of Tacoma v. Welcker · 96 Wash. 2d 616 - In Re Petition of Seattle · City of Tacoma v. Nisqually Power Co. · 59 Wash. 2d 586 - King County v. Theilman
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.
“[w]hen it comes to such discretionary details as the particular land chosen, the amount of land needed, or the kinds of legal interests in that land that are necessary for the project, many Washington decisions have said that the condemnor's judgment on these matters will be overturned only if there is "proof of actual fraud or such arbitrary and capricious conduct as would amount to constructive fraud."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]his court must ensure that the entire parcel subject to the eminent domain proceedings will be employed by the public use. The relevant inquiry is whether the government seeks to condemn any more property than would be necessary to accomplish purely the public component of the project.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the private development in this vacant space is a separable component of the expansion project. [The private developer's] participation is a means to an end, but it is not an end in and of itself.”
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.