Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 Wash. App. 280 - Ward v. Torjussen

52 Wash. App. 280 - Ward v. Torjussen’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2019

10 state decisions

701988199020002010decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · 108 Wash. 2d 299 - McDaniels v. Carlson · 100 Wash. 2d 660 - Rains v. State · 84 Wash. 2d 975 - Maltman v. Sauer · 71 Wash. 2d 392 - Bordeaux v. Ingersoll-Rand 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “did not have an opportunity to control any part of the litigation. She did not have the right to conduct her own examination of witnesses, choose her own theory of the case, or be represented by counsel. All decisions in the presentation of the City’s case fell within the exclusive province of the city attorney who represented the City of Bellevue, not [the officer].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “negates liability to the fireman, police officer or other official by the one whose negligence or conduct brought the injured official to the scene. The rule denies recovery by the injured official from the one whose sole connection with the injury is that his act placed the fireman or police officer in harm's way.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Generally, agency has been found to provide the requisite privity only when the principal or agent is attempting to benefit from collateral estoppel, not when collateral estoppel is used against the principal or agent.”
    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.