King v. Snohomish County’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Holt v. Holt (2013), Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc. (2008)
29 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 Lybbert v. Grant County, State of Wash. · 141 Wash. 2d 29 - Lybbert v. Grant County · 86 Wash. App. 613 - Voicelink Data Services, Inc. v. Datapulse, Inc. · 116 Wash. 2d 584 - French v. Gabriel · Burton v. Northern Dutchess Hospital
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he doctrine is designed to prevent a defendant from ambushing a plaintiff during litigation either through delay in asserting a defense or misdirecting the plaintiff away from a defense for tactical advantage.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'(1) assertion of the defense is inconsistent with defendant's prior behavior or (2) the defendant has been dilatory in asserting the defense.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“before any significant expenditures of time and money had occurred and at a time when the [plaintiff] could have remedied the defect.”
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.