33 Wash. App. 315 - Simons v. Tri-State Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2000
15 state decisions
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 Cella v. United States · 83 Wash. 2d 491 - Morris v. McNicol · 91 Wash. 2d 345 - Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. · 84 Wash. 2d 518 - Jones v. Strom Construction Co. · Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Vowell Construction Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * The test of intent is `not a desire or purpose to confer a benefit upon the third person, nor a desire to advance his interests, but an intent that the promisor shall assume a direct obligation to him.' American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Harbor Constr. Co., 51 Wash.2d 258, 266 , 317 P.2d 521 (1957). Intent is to be gleaned from the contract as a whole, construed in light of the circumstances under which it was made. American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Harbor Constr. Co., supra." 655 P.2d at 708-709 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * intend that the promisor assume a direct obligation to the intended beneficiary at the time they enter into the contract." Simons v. Tri-State Construction Co., 33 Wash. App. 315 , 655 P.2d 703, 708 (1982), citing Burke & Thomas, Inc. v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, 92 Wash.2d 762, 767 , 600 P.2d 1282 (1979); McDonald Constr. Co. v. Murray, 5 Wash. App. 68 , 485 P.2d 626 (1971).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“An adjoining [land] owner who causes his neighbor's property to slide and slip because of loss of lateral support is liable in damages resulting therefrom under the constitution and law of the state regardless of negligence. However, the sliding and slipping of the soil must occur because of its own weight and not because of the superimposed weight of the buildings or improvements placed thereon.”
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.