Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 Wash. App. 109 - Ruff v. Knickerbocker

168 Wash. App. 109 - Ruff v. Knickerbocker’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 125 Wash. 2d 533 - Marley v. Department of Labor & Industries · 103 Wash. 2d 249 - Orwick v. City of Seattle · Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT · 75 Wash. 2d 1 - Dike v. Dike · 83 Wash. 2d 714 - Deschenes v. King County

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

  1. “(1) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.27.231, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under RCW 26.27.261 or 26.27.271, and: (i) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (ii) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Simply put, [the temporary emergency jurisdiction provision] requires both courts to communicate with each other.”
    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.