172 Wash. 2d 299 - Dolan v. King County’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Gideon v. Wainwright · Polk County v. Dodson · Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington · 121 Wash. 2d 552 - Hanson v. City of Snohomish
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellate courts give deference to trial courts on a sliding scale based on how much assessment of credibility is required; the less the outcome depends on credibility, the less deference is given to the trial court. Washington has thus applied a de novo standard in the context of a purely written record where the trial court made no determination of witness credibility. See Smith[ v. Skagit County], 75 Wn.2d [715,] 719[, 453 P.2d 832 (1969)]. However, substantial evidence is more appropriate, even if the credibility of witnesses is not specifically at issue, in cases such as this where the trial court reviewed an enormous amount of documentary evidence, weighed that evidence, resolved inevitable evidentiary conflicts and discrepancies, and issued statutorily mandated written findings. See [In re Marriage of] Rideout, 150 Wn.2d [337,] 351[, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003)]; Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 105 S. Ct. 1504 , 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985) (deference rationale not limited to credibility determinations but also grounded in fact-finding expertise and conservation of judicial resources).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““where . . . the trial court has not seen nor heard testimony requiring it to assess the credibility or competency of witnesses, and to weigh the evidence, nor reconcile conflicting evidence, then on appeal a court of review stands in the same position as the trial court in looking at the facts of the case and should review the record de novo.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kipp
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.