14 Wash. App. 390 - Hendrickson v. Konopaski’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2007
14 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 60 Wash. 2d 836 - Gardner v. Malone · 70 Wash. 2d 173 - Cox v. Charles Wright Academy, Inc. · 79 Wash. 2d 864 - James v. Robeck · 73 Wash. 2d 206 - State v. Gobin · 62 Wash. 2d 840 - Coleman v. George
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find it impossible to reconcile all the decisions and statements of the Supreme Court pertaining to an abuse of discretion standard of review on the one hand and de novo review on the other. It appears to us, however, that where a trial court has proceeded under RCW 4.76.030, and has either reduced or increased a verdict, de novo review of the evidence becomes the standard of appellate review and the trial court has no discretion where the verdict is "within the range" of the credible evidence. But, where the trial court has simply granted a new trial under the authority of CR 59(a)(5) on grounds of an excessive or inadequate verdict, an abuse of discretion standard of appellate review is used in recognition of some discretion in the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“from the record that the damages awarded in such verdict by the jury were so excessive ... as unmistakably to indicate that the amount of the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“so excessive as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice.”
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.