64 Wash. App. 710 - Pedersen v. Bibioff’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc. (2010), 84 Wash. App. 20 - State Ex Rel. Eikenberry v. Frodert (1996)
2 federal appellate · 21 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 114 Wash. 2d 772 - In Re Marriage of Griffin · Dean v. Jordan · Adair v. Hustace · 2 Wash. App. 348 - McCutcheon v. Brownfield · 76 Wash. 2d 457 - Beckendorf v. Beckendorf
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) representation of an existing fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff; (6) plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; (7) plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and (9) damages suffered by the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]vidence to sustain the gift between such persons must show that the gift was made freely, voluntarily, and with a full understanding of the facts . . . If the judicial mind is left in doubt or uncertainty as to exactly what the status of the transaction was, the donee must be deemed to have failed in the discharge of his burden and the claim of gift must be rejected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Endicott v. Saul
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.