Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 Wash. 2d 279 - Code v. London

27 Wash. 2d 279 - Code v. London’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 1986
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Whidden v. Abbott · Swift v. Reasonover · Knauf & Tesch Co. v. Elkhart Lake Sand & Gravel Co. · Rasmussen v. Rasmussen · Hall v. Marshall

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

  1. ““To constitute estoppel in pais, three things must occur: (1) an admission, statement, or act, inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted; (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act; and (3) injury to such other party resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate such admission, statement, or act.””
    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.