Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 Wash. App. 339 - Pepper v. King County

61 Wash. App. 339 - Pepper v. King County’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Loeffelholz v. CITIZENS FOR LEADERS (2004), 73 Wash. App. 247 - Carlsen v. Wackenhut Corporation (1994)

28 state decisions

170199120002010decided

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 United States v. Atlas Life Insurance · 64 Wash. 2d 309 - Martin v. Port of Seattle · Kincaid v. City of Seattle · 66 Wash. 2d 503 - Lambert v. Lambert · 6 Wash. App. 765 - LaHue v. Keystone Investment 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination in the judgment, supported by written findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. The findings may be made at the time of entry of judgment or thereafter on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party. In the absence of such findings, determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In any case with ... multiple claims for relief ... an appeal may be taken from a final judgment which does not dispose of all the claims ... but only after an express direction by the trial court for entry of judgment and an express determination in the judgment, supported by written findings, that there is no just reason for delay.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The theory of inverse condemnation was created by the courts to provide a remedy for a property owner whose property has been appropriated by the government and the government has been recalcitrant in its duty to initiate formal condemnation proceedings.”
    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.