40 Wash. 2d 331 - Symington v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

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

1. “We have here the same subject-matter, the same parties, and the same quality of persons. The causes of action in the two actions to quiet title were the same: the determination of the superior title to the property based upon facts, all of which were in existence at the time of the first judgment, and which were, or could have been, litigated therein. The judgment in the first action operated upon every claim which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation. Sayward v. Thayer, 9 Wash. 22 , 36 Pac. 966 , 38 Pac. 137 . . . . The law requires that there shall be an end to litigation, and where a party has had a full and fair opportunity to make all of the de- . fenses at his command, and he elects not to disclose his claim, . . . the doctrine of res judicata applies and he cannot later assert it. Youngquist v. Thomas, 196 Wash. 444 , 83 P. (2d) 337 . The judgment was conclusive upon the issue of the paramount title and of everything that might have been urged for or against such title.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Wash. App. 801 - Meder v. CCME CORP.

2. “The gravamen of the action [quiet title, RCW 7.28.010] was a determination of all of the interests in the property claimed by the defendants. The action was not aimed at a particular piece of evidence but was directed to all of the pretensions of Mr. Symington to the title. It put him to a disclaimer or to allegations and proof of all of the interests which he claimed to the property, the nature of which were known to him, or by the use of diligence, could have been known. Watson v. Glover, 21 Wash. 677 , 59 Pac. 516 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cacek v. Boucher

3. “The question is whether or not all of the issues raised by the pleadings had been adjudicated previously between the parties in the prior action to quiet title to the same property. If they had been so determined, then the decree in the former action is res judicata of the issues in the instant case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cacek v. Boucher