45 Wash. 2d 675 - Lindquist v. Mullen’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Fernandi v. Strully (1961), Shearin v. Lloyd (1957)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 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 6 Cal. 2d 302 - Huysman v. Kirsch · Mohr v. Williams · In Re McDonnell's Estate · Burton v. Tribble · Morrison v. Acton
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where an injury, although slight, is sustained in consequence of the wrongful act of another, and the law affords a remedy therefor, the statute of limitations attaches at once. It is not material that all the damages resulting from the act shall have been sustained at that time, and the running of the statute is not postponed by the fact that the actual or substantial damages do not occur until a later date.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““We are satisfied that had the legislature intended the principle of discovery to apply to tort cases based on negligence, it would have specifically said so, as it did with regard to discovery in fraud cases.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It may be suggested that a result different from that proposed by the majority would open the floodgates to litigation and in effect negative the statute of limitations in personal injury cases where injuries may actually or allegedly be discovered a number of years after the occurrence of an act of negligence. I do not share this view of alarm over the possible consequences of a result in this case different from that agreed upon by the majority. In the first place, this is a malpractice case. The decision of the court in this matter can and should be limited to such cases. In the second place, the facts are unique — namely, a doctor allowed a surgical sponge to be placed in the body of his patient and to remain there for seven years, examining her and assuring her, during such period, that the incision would heal. The assault, trespass, negligence, or invasion of the patient’s right of personality continued for the period of seven years.” 277 P. 2d, at p. 733”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fernandi v. Strully
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.