Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 Wash. 2d 216 - Hogland v. Klein

49 Wash. 2d 216 - Hogland v. Klein’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
3
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 113 Wash. 2d 869 - Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1990), 84 Wash. 2d 239 - King v. City of Seattle (1974)

3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

26019561960197019801990200020102020decided

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 83 F. Supp. 804 - Taylor v. Reading 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"A wide latitude of discretion must be allowed to the person who by another's wrong has been forced into a predicament where he is faced with a probability of injury or loss. Only the conduct of a reasonable man is required of him. If a choice of two reasonable courses presents itself, the person whose wrong forced the choice cannot complain that one rather that the other is chosen. "”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The measure of damages with reference to the plaintiffs' property in this case is the entire cost of restoring the damage to return the property to its former condition unless the cost exceeds the diminution in value as a result of the accident, in which event the measure of damages would be the difference between the fair cash market value of the plaintiffs' property immediately before and immediately after the accident. You must adopt as the measure of damages the lesser of the two amounts, the cost of repair or the diminution in value as I have instructed you. "If you find the plaintiffs' building could be restored to its former condition, then you may take into account in determining plaintiffs' damages the cost of restoration of the building and such loss of rent, if any, as you find plaintiffs may have sustained during the time when, with reasonable diligence, the building could have been restored to its former condition."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he party injured is not under any obligation to use more than ordinary diligence. Prudent action is required, but ‘not that action which the defendant, upon afterthought, may be able to show would have been more advantageous to him.’ The amount of care required is not to be measured by ‘ex post facto wisdom’; and the plaintiff is not bound at his peril to know the best thing to do. 1 Sedgwicií On Damages 415 (9th ed.), § 221.”
    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.