47 Wash. App. 806 - Hampson v. Ramer’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Wong v. City and County of Honolulu · 107 Wash. 2d 693 - Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center v. Holman · 15 Wash. App. 223 - Associated Mortgage Investors v. G. P. Kent Construction Co. · 38 Wash. App. 274 - Gammon v. Clark Equipment 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No reasonable excuse has been put forth here. Absent such an excuse, the noncompliance with discovery may be deemed to be willful under Taylor v. Cessna Aircraft Co., supra . Where a willful noncompliance with discovery substantially prejudices the opponent's ability to prepare for trial, the exclusion of evidence is not an abuse of discretion. Lampard v. Roth, supra ; Associated Mortgage Investors v. [G.P.] Kent Constr. Co., Inc ., 15 Wash.App. 223, 228-29 , 548 P.2d 558 , review denied, 87 Wash.2d 1006 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence .. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A violation of the discovery rules is willful if done without a reasonable excuse.”
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.