69 Wash. 2d 482 - Smith v. Rodene’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 85 Wash. 2d 52 - Grimsby v. Samson (1975), 91 Wash. 2d 230 - Seattle-First National Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co. (1978)
3 federal appellate · 24 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 Maddux v. Donaldson · 52 Wash. 2d 792 - Gerberg v. Crosby · Spade v. Lynn & Boston Railroad · Young v. Dille · Corcoran v. Postal Telegraph-Cable 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]ecovery may not be had for mental anguish or distress of mind in those cases not involving malice or wrongful intent unless there has been an actual invasion of the plaintiff’s person or security or a direct possibility thereof. [2]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We think that a fair summary of the holdings in such cases is as follows: (1) Where plaintiff suffers mental or emotional distress which is caused by some negligent act of the defendant, there is no right of action, even although the mental condition in turn causes some physical injury, unless the act causing the mental fright or emotional distress also threatens an immediate physical invasion of plaintiff’s personal security, that is, threatens immediate bodily harm. (2) But where mental suffering or emotional distress is caused by a wilful act, recovery is permitted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kloepfel v. Bokor“"We think that a fair summary of the holdings in such cases is as follows: (1) Where plaintiff suffers mental or emotional distress which is caused by some negligent act of the defendant, there is no right of action, even although the mental condition in turn causes some physical injury; unless the act causing the mental fright or emotional distress also threatens an immediate physical invasion of plaintiff's personal security, that is, threatens immediate bodily harm. (2) But where mental suffering or emotional distress is caused by a wilful act, recovery is permitted."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kloepfel v. Bokor
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.