67 Wash. 2d 31 - Hoffman v. Tracy’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Nocktonick Ex Rel. Matson v. Nocktonick (1980), 105 Wash. 2d 99 - Jenkins v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (1986)
45 state decisions — followed in 13 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 56 Wash. 2d 846 - State v. Baker · Roller v. Roller · 41 Wash. 2d 642 - Borst v. Borst · Cowgill, Adm'r v. Boock, Adm'r · 64 Wash. 2d 286 - State v. Erdman
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.
“In the course of the [Borst] opinion, written by Hamley, J., the author cites, as an example of the cases where the parental relationship has been held not to justify immunity, the case of Cowgill v. Boock, 189 Ore. 282 , 218 P.2d 445 , 19 A.L.R.2d 405 , wherein the father, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, had compelled the son to ride in the family car with him. As the author pointed out, this was a case of willful misconduct, and in such a case the courts in recent years have uniformly allowed the child a cause of action. The trial court in this case concluded from the Borst case that a parent who takes a child in an automobile with him and drives it while he is intoxicated is temporarily abdicating his parental responsibilities and is not entitled to the immunity which is designed to encourage the performance of those responsibilities. We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in this interpretation of the case. (Italics ours.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The reasons for the [immunity] rule do not exist, and the mantle of immunity therefore disappears, where the tort is committed by the parent while dealing with the child in a nonparental transaction. (Italics ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“none of the arguments which have been discussed [in the opinion] provides a logical and just basis for an absolute rule of immunity applicable”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zellmer v. Zellmer
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.