Leaon v. Washington County’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 644 - Thing v. La Chusa (1989), K.A.C. v. Benson (1995)
5 district · 29 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 34 Cal. 3d 18 - Williams v. State of California · Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc. · Warren v. District of Columbia · Lange v. National Biscuit Company · Harris v. Trojan Fireworks 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs argue the stag party was like an “office party” sponsored and supervised by an employer. We disagree. * * * Although the sheriff was aware of the stag party, there is no evidence suggesting the party was sponsored or supervised by Washington County. The party was not held at the employer’s place of business, nor during normal working hours, nor did the employer furnish any of the refreshments. This was simply a private party by and for people who knew each other at work. An employer is not legally responsible for what his employees choose to do socially when off-duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oslin v. State“This is not a case of a potential defendant laying low while aware the plaintiff is proceeding under a mistaken belief as to who he is. This is simply a case of a plaintiff choosing, for whatever reasons, not to make a known defendant a party until it was too late to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rule 9.08 does not toll the statute of limitations. The rule says nothing about any ‘relation back’ effect. The naming of a party under Rule 9.08 does not entitle the amended pleadings to relate back as to the action against that individual.”
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.