Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Wash. 2d 65 - McUne v. Fuqua

42 Wash. 2d 65 - McUne v. Fuqua’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably 123 Wash. 2d 206 - Carson v. Fine (1994), 75 Wash. 2d 833 - Brown v. Quick Mix Co. (1969)

27 state decisions

8019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Steinberg v. New York Life Insurance · Brammer v. Lappenbusch · State v. Long · Hansen v. Sandvik · State v. Miller

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

  1. “This requirement does not mean that the taking of the trip must be motivated by the expectation of receiving the benefit. It need only be shown that the furnishing of transportation to the passenger was motivated by such expectation. Nor does it mean that the expectation of receiving the benefit must be the sole motivating factor in furnishing transportation to the passenger. It is sufficient, we believe, if such expectation is shown to be a substantial factor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * It is sufficient if the presence of the occupant directly compensates the operator or owner in a substantial and material or business sense, as distinguished from mere social benefit or nominal or incidental contribution to expenses. (Citation.)"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A new trial should not be granted because of misconduct of counsel unless there has been a request to the trial judge to give the jury a corrective instruction, except where the misconduct was so flagrant that no instruction would cure it.”
    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.