57 Wash. App. 562 - Brock v. Tarrant’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 108 Wash. 2d 299 - McDaniels v. Carlson · 94 Wash. 2d 119 - Davis v. Department of Labor & Industries · 93 Wash. 2d 881 - Liebergesell v. Evans · 99 Wash. 2d 95 - Thomas v. French · 106 Wash. 2d 826 - Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A broker’s duty to a purchaser of real property is described in Hoffman [v. Connall, 108 Wn.2d 69 , 736 P.2d 242 (1987)], at 75: The underlying rationale of [a broker’s] duty to a buyer who is not his client is that he is a professional who is in a unique position to verify critical information given him by the seller. His duty is to take reasonable steps to avoid disseminating to the buyer false information. The broker is required to employ a reasonable degree of effort and professional expertise to confirm or refute information from the seller which he knows, or should know, is pivotal to the transaction from the buyer’s perspective. (Citations omitted.) Tennant [v. Lawton, 26 Wn. App. 701, 706 , 615 P.2d 1305 (1980)]; see also McRae v. Bolstad, 32 Wn. App. 173 , 646 P.2d 771 (1982), aff’d, 101 Wn.2d 161 , 676 P.2d 496 (1984). Thus, “a real estate broker must act as a professional, and will be held to a standard of reasonable caret,]” but need not guarantee every statement made by the seller. Hoffman, at 77.”
2 later decisions 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.