59 Wash. 2d 601 - Miller v. King County’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2003
12 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 Murphy v. King County
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.
“an incentive to landowners to grant areas for public roads, with the assurance that, if the purpose of the grant was not accomplished within five years, a reversion of the authority to construct a road would result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . We are not here concerned with the meaning of the words [“donate, grant and dedicate”] but rather, with the intent of the donors when the words were used. To hold that the words of the donors constituted a conveyance such as a quit claim deed, would vest title to the street in the county for any purpose for which it might elect to use it. Such a construction could defeat the very purpose for which the donors made the dedication or grant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that statutes be interpreted to give meaning and effect to each, if possible.”
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.