H.B.H. v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A duty to prevent intentional harm by a third party arises where the defendant has either: (1) a special relationship with the third party, such that the defendant has a duty to control the third party's conduct; or (2) a special relationship with the victim, such that the defendant has a duty to protect the victim. Id. (citations omitted). The second type of special relationship, which the Supreme Court of Washington has described as an "entrustment for the protection of a vulnerable victim,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cox v. State

2. “The State, through DSHS, stands in a special relationship with foster children. While DSHS contracts with foster parents and others to provide day-to-day care for dependent children, the State alone is custodian and caretaker of foster children. Consistent with our precedent, we hold that the special relationship between DSHS and foster children gives rise to a protective duty under Restatement § 315(b)....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cox v. State

3. “-10- Wrigley v. State, 96830-6(Stephens, CJ., concurring) governing Washington's child welfare system. H.B.H. v. State, 192 Wn.2d 154 ,164, 429 P.3d 484 (2018)(citing chs. 13.34 RCW(dependency and termination ofparent- child relationship), 26.44 RCW (abuse of children), 74.13 RCW (child welfare services), 74.15 RCW (care of children, expectant mothers, persons with developmental disabilities)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 Wash. 2d 65 - Wrigley v. State