37 Wash. App. 234 - Ott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2006
11 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 82 Wash. 2d 736 - In Re Welfare of Sego · 99 Wash. 2d 842 - In Re the Welfare of Hall · 73 Wash. 2d 263 - In RE ESTES v. Hopp · 48 Wash. 2d 802 - Fuller v. Ostruske · Thornthwaite v. Greater Seattle Realty & Improvement 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A threshold question concerns the appropriate standard of review in this case. Mr. Ott contends that the usual substantial evidence test does not apply when findings of fact must be proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: [E]vidence that may be sufficiently "substantial" to support an ultimate fact in issue based upon a "preponderance of the evidence" may not be sufficient to support an ultimate fact in issue, proof of which must be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, the question to be resolved is not merely whether there is "substantial evidence" to support the trial court's ultimate determination of the factual issue but whether there is "substantial evidence" to support such findings in light of the "highly probable" test. (Footnote and citation omitted.) In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973). Accord, In re Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 849 , 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). However, this court has declined to follow the Sego standard of review, in a case involving the termination of parental rights: The Sego court goes on to say, however, that an appellate court may not evaluate credibility or weight of evidence. Sego , at 737-40! Because we cannot envision any means of applying the Sego "high probability test" without inexorably passing upon the quality of the evidence, we have chosen to follow the traditional substantial evidence quantitative rule as clearly supported by the rationale of the opinion. In re Kier, 21 Wn. App. 836 , 839 n.l, 587”
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.