53 Wash. 2d 820 - Sneddon v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 1987
9 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 Elston v. McGlauflin · Osborn v. City of Seattle · State Ex Rel. Berge v. Superior Court · Thorpe v. City of Spokane
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.
“Appellants contend that it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of one William Enkeboll, an engineer. Mr. Enkeboll was employed by respondents to make an investigation of the [mud] slide. According to appellants' offer of proof, Mr. Enkeboll's opinion as to the origin of the slide did not correspond to respondents' theory, so they chose not to call him as a witness. When appellants attempted to have him testify, respondents objected; and the trial judge sustained their objections— apparently on the ground that, since respondents had paid him for making his investigation, they were privileged to keep him from testifying. The reason given was not adequate for excluding Mr. Enkeboll's testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.