Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 Wash. App. 289 - Caplan v. Sullivan

37 Wash. App. 289 - Caplan v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2002

10 state decisions

50198419902000decided

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 95 Wash. 2d 699 - In Re the Marriage of Gimlett · 95 Wash. 2d 237 - deElche v. Jacobsen · 89 Wash. 2d 394 - Jepson v. Department of Labor & Industries · 1 Wash. App. 678 - Brandt v. Impero · In re Cave

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

  1. “Where the answer is controverted the costs of the proceeding, including a reasonable compensation for attorney's fees, shall abide the issue of such contest: Provided, That no costs or attorney's fees in such contest shall be taxable to defendant in the event of a controversion on the part of plaintiff.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]e must assume ... that the Legislature intended to exclude the term and that it meant what it said.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The parties did not brief, and we do not need to decide, the applicability of deElche v. Jacobsen .... Even if deElche were to apply to this case, there is no indication in the record that Caplan established that his judgment could not be satisfied out of Sullivan's separate property prior to his attempt to garnish Sullivan's community property earnings, which would be required under the holding in deElche.”
    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.