60 Wash. 2d 421 - Holmes v. Raffo’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 87 Wash. 2d 232 - In Re the Salary of the Juvenile Director (1976), Luna v. North Star Dodge Sales, Inc. (1984)
45 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 54 Cal. App. 157 - Meyers v. Bradford · Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co. · Madden v. Nippon Auto Co. · Jellum v. Grays Harbor Fuel Co. · Western MacHinery Exchange v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Since compensation for injury to personal property is the cardinal rule for the measure of the damage, there would seem to be no room for affording a recovery for a deprivation of the use of an automobile devoted to business, and denying it to one devoted to pleasure uses. The value of the use of personal property is not the mere value of its intended use but of its presents use. The value of an article to its owner, as Sedgwick points out, lies in his right to use, enjoy, and dispose of it. There are the rights of property which ownership vests in him, and whether he, in fact, avails himself of his right or use does not in the least affect the value of his use. (1) Sedgwick on Damages (9th Ed.) § 243a. His right to the use of his property is not diminished by the use the owner makes of it. His right of user, whether for business or pleasure, is absolute, and whoever injures him in the exercise of that right renders himself liable for consequent damage."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If we were to hold that a plaintiff who has lost the use of his pleasure automobile ... cannot be compensated because he has not hired a substitute automobile, we would be placing upon recovery a condition of financial ability to hire another automobile to take the place of the injured automobile. The law cannot condone such a condition. He would be denied compensation for his inconvenience resulting from the defendant’s wrongful act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule with respect to loss of use of an automobile is that the owner may recover, as general damages, the use value of which he is deprived because of the defendant’s wrongful act. Stubbs v. Molberget, 108 Wash. 89 , 182 Pac. 936 , 6 A.L.R. 318 (1919); Jellum v. Grays Harbor Fuel Co., 160 Wash. 585 , 295 Pac. 939 (1931); Norris v. Hadfield, supra [ 124 Wash. 198 , 213 Pac. 934 , 216 Pac. 846 (1923)]; Western Mach. Exch. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 142 Wash. 675 , 254 Pac. 248 (1927). Damages to compensate for this loss may only take into account the reasonable time in which the automobile should have been repaired. 5 Berry, Law of Automobiles § 5.233 (1935); Madden v. Nippon Auto Co., 119 Wash. 618 , 206 Pac. 569 (1922).”
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.