Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 WASH2D 151 - Ashley v. Hall

Ashley v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2011

4 state decisions

20199920002010decided

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 100 Wash. 2d 188 - Brown v. FIRE PROTEC. DIST. · 80 Wash. App. 592 - Henderson v. Tyrrell · Sears v. Seattle Consolidated Street Railway Co. · Miller v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp. · 76 Wash. App. 188 - State v. Hardy

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]dmission of testimony that is otherwise excludable is not prejudicial error where similar testimony was admitted earlier without objection.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Q: Now, where you saw Mr. Hall and where you saw the girl when she first started running into the road, did you see any way that Mr. Hall could have avoided hitting her? A: No, it didn't appear to me at the time. I can remember fairly clearly remembering that the accident was pretty much unavoidable once it got started there.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “RP at 95. The trial court overruled counsel's objection on grounds that Henry was permitted to give his impressions at the time of the accident. Consequently, Henry again stated his belief that”
    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.