Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 Wash. 2d 81 - Paulson v. Higgins

43 Wash. 2d 81 - Paulson v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
January 2001
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2001

10 state decisions

40195319601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “If there is to be a rule, there must be a point at which failure to comply therewith can no longer be corrected. That point is the filing of respondent’s brief.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(g) Contents. In addition to the title and/or cover pages, briefs for the regular appeal calendar shall consist of the following subdivisions, titled with distinctive type and in the order indicated: (1) Appellant’s or Petitioner’s Opening Brief. (iii) Assignments of error. Each error relied upon shall be clearly pointed out and discussed under appropriately designed headings. Where there are several errors relied on which present the same general questions, they may be discussed together.....Whenever error is assigned to any finding or findings of fact, so much of the finding or findings made or refused as is claimed to be erroneous, shall be set out verbatim in the brief and reference made thereto by number of the “assignments of error.””
    2 later decisions 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.