47 Wash. 2d 760 - Freeman v. Navarre’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2011
20 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche · Glanzer v. . Shepard · Carter v. Yardley & Co.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The relation of principal and agent is consensual; it may be either express or implied; and, if the necessary elements are present, the relation exists whether the parties understood the exact nature of the relation or not.... Since [the installer] was entirely subject to the [developer’s] control in its choice of insulated pipe ..., and did not exercise any independent judgment, it acted in the capacity of an agent, and the contract was between the [developer] and the [pipe supplier/manufacturer/furnish-er]. Thus, all of the warranties, if they were in fact given and relied upon, were given to the [developer].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No privity of contract is necessary, however, to sustain an action in tort by an individual specially injured by an act or omission constituting a breach of contract where it also constituted an invasion of the legal right of, or the violation of a legal duty owed to, the plaintiff, independently of or concurrently with the contract."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The exception to the privity of contract doctrine has been extended in our state to so-called inherently dangerous instrumentalities; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456 , 12 P. (2d) 409 , 15 P. (2d) 1118 , 88 A.L.R. 521 ; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wn. (2d) 458, 139 P. (2d) 706 .”
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.