Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 Wash. 2d 151 - Evich v. Kovacevich

33 Wash. 2d 151 - Evich v. Kovacevich’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 107 Wash. 2d 444 - Lawson v. State (1986), Standing Rock Homeowners Assn. v. Misich (2001)

23 state decisions

12019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Berlin v. Robbins · Bailey v. Hennessey · Hubbard v. Grandquist · Commercial Waterway District No. 1 v. King County · Olson v. Fireoved

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

  1. “Whether or not the owner of land, over which an easement exists, may erect and maintain fences, bars, or gates across or along an easement way, depends upon the intention of the parties connected with the original creation of the easement, as shown by the circumstances of the case; the nature and situation of the property subject to the easement; and the manner in which the way has been used and occupied.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Unity of title and subsequent separation is an absolute requirement. The second and third characteristics are aids to construction in determining the cardinal consideration—the presumed intention of the parties as disclosed by the extent and character of the user, the nature of the property, and the relation of the separated parts to each other.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a reasonable necessity for the easement in order to secure and maintain the quiet enjoyment of the dominant estate.”
    2 later decisions 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.