Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 WASHAPP 884 - Drake v. Ross

Drake v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 78 Wash. 2d 479 - State v. Robinson · 63 Wash. 2d 679 - Sposari v. Matt Malaspina & Co. · 25 Wash. 2d 171 - Lubin v. Cowell

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

  1. “Defendant Ross argues that Drake did not present his best evidence, namely, his business records, which Ross says is necessary to satisfy the reasonable certainty test. However, defense counsel made no objection to the question about profits, nor did he move to strike the answer from the record and request the court to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony or, alternatively, move for a mistrial. After the first objection, several witnesses testified for the plaintiff in an attempt to build a foundation for the question as to lost profits. Defense counsel had made comments suggesting that any weakness in the presentation of evidence on lost profits could be taken care of on cross-examination. Failure to object to the question as to lost profits at this stage of the trial and failure to move to strike the testimony amounts to a waiver of the defendant's objection to this evidence, and thus the objection will not be considered on appeal. Lubin v. Cowell, 25 Wn.2d 171, 185 , 170 P.2d 301 (1946).”
    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.