Ockerman v. DDES’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 128 Wash. 2d 492 - City of Seattle v. Fontanilla · 127 Wash. 2d 281 - State v. McCraw · 111 Wash. 2d 828 - Kreidler v. Eikenberry · 123 Wash. 2d 779 - Food Services of America v. Royal Heights, Inc. · 98 Wash. App. 381 - State v. Keller
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Had the legislature intended that an explanation of the reasonable time estimate be included in the response, it could have said so. We note that the statute expressly requires an agency to provide a written statement of its specific reasons if it denies a record request. Reading these two provisions together, it is clear that the express requirement for an explanation [when an agency denies a request] and the absence of such a requirement [when an agency estimates the disclosure date] was a conscious decision by the legislature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[j]udicial review of all agency actions taken or challenged under RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.320 shall be de novo.”
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.