6 Wash. App. 975 - Henderson v. Bobst’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 56 Wash. 2d 564 - Owens v. Kuro · 72 Wash. 2d 93 - Niven v. MacDonald · 59 Wash. 2d 796 - Kelsey v. Pollock · 53 Wash. 2d 313 - Christensen v. Gensman · 2 Wash. App. 183 - Kirk v. Allemann
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial judge may view the premises for the purpose of clarifying and harmonizing testimony. In other words, [the] view of the premises is to aid ... in [the] understanding of the evidence introduced in the case. . . . In this jurisdiction, the tried judge cannot view the premises for the purpose of proving some res gestae fact not in evidence, nor may he view the premises for the purpose of searching for extrinsic evidence to be applied in corroborating or discrediting the testimony of a witness. If he does so, and his judgment is based thereon, it is reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'Sullivan v. Scott“Plaintiff’s contention that the favored driver is under no duty to keep a lookout to his left is not well taken. While the primary duty rests with the disfavored driver, the favored driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, which includes the duty to look out for approaching traffic.”
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.