Schmidt v. Coogan’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 119 Wash. 2d 724 - McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · 128 Wash. 2d 366 - Goodman v. Goodman · Matson v. Weidenkopf · 65 Wash. 2d 793 - Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Upton · Donald B. Murphy Contractors 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a number of these exhibits are now irrelevant given the fact that this case is now limited to a new trial on the issues of damages only. In other words, any exhibit submitted by the plaintiff that relates to liability should be excluded as generally being irrelevant ... as well as unduly confusing and prejudicial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schmidt v. Coogan
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.