Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 P.3d 10 - Kirkham v. Smith

Kirkham v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2024

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

60200120102020decided

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 108 Wash. 2d 162 - Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co. · 93 Wash. 2d 223 - Kittilson v. Ford · 2 Wash. App. 845 - Shermer v. Baker · 107 Wash. 2d 314 - Morris v. International Yogurt Co. · 68 Wash. 2d 707 - Hughes v. Stusser

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

  1. “CR 15(a) provides that “a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” “A motion to amend the pleadings is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned except for abuse of that discretion.” Culpepper v. Snohomish County Dep’t of Planning & Cmty. Dev., 59 Wn. App. 166, 169 , 796 P.2d 1285 (1990). Leave to amend should be freely given unless it would result in prejudice to the nonmoving party. Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987). In determining whether prejudice would result, a court can consider potential delay, unfair surprise, or the introduction of remote issues. Herron, 108 Wn.2d at 165-66 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) A representation of an existing fact; (2) its materiality; (3) its falsity; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person to whom it is made; (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person to whom it is made; (7) the latter’s reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) his right to rely, upon it; and (9) his consequent damage.”
    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.