50 Wash. 2d 716 - State v. Calkins’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably State v. Thelberg (1960), Riddle v. State Highway Commission (1959)
3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Carazalla v. State · Wayland v. City of Seattle · Finch v. Grays Harbor County · In re Acquiring Title by the City of New York
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These are matters as to which it is difficult to formulate specific rules, and they must rest largely in the discretion of the trial court, to be reviewed only for manifest abuse.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘It is well established that the owner of land abutting upon a conventional highway has an easement of ingress and egress. This has been treated as a property right, attached to the land. The courts unanimously hold that such an owner is entitled to just compensation if this easement or property right is taken or damaged.’ (Italics ours).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * where a new limited-access highway is established by condemnation in an area where no highway previously existed, there is no taking of an easement of access, because such an easement has never in fact existed. ifc ^ ‡ # # ‡ “Thus, since the property owner has no easement, i. e., no right of access to the highway itself, it follows that an allowance of damages for the loss of such a nonexistent easement or right of access is unrealistic, unjustified in fact, and improper.””
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.