7 Wash. 2d 111 - Johanson v. King County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellants say, in effect, that Rian might have been and probably was deceived and misled by the yellow line. Appellants cannot recover herein because of what they claim might have happened, or because the driver of the Rian car might have been misled by the location of the yellow line, or because there was no evidence upon which the jury could have found that Rian was not deceived. The burden is upon appellants to establish, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the location of the yellow line did, in fact, deceive and mislead the driver of the Rian car, to his injury. The jury may not enter into the realm of conjecture or speculation, in determining whether or not the location of the yellow line was a proximate cause of the collision. . . . . . . [I]t would be mere guessing, in view of all the facts, to say that Rian was in any way deceived and misled by the location of the yellow line.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Wash. App. 274 - Nakamura v. Jeffery · Miller v. Likins