5 Wash. App. 186 - Swenson v. Lowe’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2003
15 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 White v. Mitchell · Sherwood v. Wise · 2 Wash. App. 824 - State v. Melrose · Schmidt v. City of North Yakima · 67 Wash. 2d 153 - American Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Haynes
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As stated in Annot., 2 A.L.R.3d 620 , 661 (1965), "where ... the work was orally ordered, requested, directed, authorized, or consented to by the owner ..." the requirement is deemed waived. Morango v. Phillips, 33 Wash.2d 351 , 205 P.2d 892 (1949); Eggers v. Luster, supra [ 32 Wash.2d 86 , 200 P.2d 520 (1948)]; Bjerkeseth v. Lysnes, 173 Wash. 229 , 22 P.2d 660 (1933); Crowley v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 29 Wash. 268 , 69 P. 784 (1902). See 13 Am.Jur.2d Building and Construction Contracts § 24 (1964).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court may well have believed that some of the deficiencies did not exist. As to the “deficiencies” for which the court made an allowance, in each case the amount allowed was substantially less than Mr. Ceis estimated the cost of repair to be. The trial court could have believed that Mr. Ceis did not give sufficient reasons for his estimates on various claimed deficiencies to be persuasive; or the trial court may have been of the opinion that the reasonable cost at the date of trial in May of 1969 would not prove the reasonable cost of repair either at the date when performance of the contract reasonably should have been completed, or at the date when the contractor ceased performance on August 15,1967. . . . . . . The credibility of expert testimony dealing with cost estimates and their reasonableness, even though uncontradicted, is for the trier of the facts. See State v. Melrose, 2 Wn. App. 824, 470 P.2d 552 (1970); Rognrust v. Seto, supra [ 2 Wn. App. 215 , 467 P.2d 204 (1970)]; Annot., 62 A.L.R.2d 1191 (1958). The court might have declined to credit the testimony at all. Nevertheless, he made offsetting allowances in the sum of $625 for items which are detailed in finding 6. Defendants complain that the allowances were insufficient. However, the court impliedly found that Mr. Ceis’ testimony furnished the court with an inadequate basis for a greater allowance. Such an implied finding was within the trial court’s power to make.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A building contract provision requiring a written order for alterations or extras will be enforced. However, the requirement of a writing is for the benefit of the owner, and the owner, either expressly or by conduct, may waive such a requirement.”
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.