48 Wash. 2d 635 - Bruce v. Bruce’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2009
7 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 Garrett v. Byerly · State v. Ryan · State ex rel. Tufton v. Superior Court
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A motion nunc pro tunc] may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court has not rendered a judgment that it might or should have rendered, or if it has rendered an imperfect or improper judgment, it has no power to remedy these errors or omissions by ordering the entry nunc pro tunc of a proper judgment."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The office of such order or decree is to record judicial action taken, and not to remedy inaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kilgore
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.