70 Wash. 2d 578 - Fosbre v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 106 Wash. 2d 658 - Younce v. Ferguson (1986), 77 Wash. 2d 785 - Dickson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1970)
30 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 Walters v. Spokane International Railway Co. · 68 Wash. 2d 644 - McKinnon v. WN. FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N · State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Kay · 58 Wash. 2d 569 - Kent v. Whitaker · 62 Wash. 2d 732 - Malstrom v. Kalland
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On the one hand, the following must be considered: Each cause depends, to a large extent, upon its own facts and circumstances. The verdict must be compensatory of a pecuniary loss. Walters v. Spokane International R. Co., 58 Wash. 293 , 108 Pac. 593 (1910). It can be substantial (Atkeson v. Jackson Estate, 72 Wash. 233 , 130 Pac. 102 (1913); St. Germain v. Potlatch Lbr. Co., 76 Wash. 102 , 135 Pac. 804 (1913); Skeels v. Davidson, 18 Wn. (2d) 358, 139 P. (2d) 301 , 149 A.L.R. 225 (1943)) but not out of proportion to actual damages. Halverson v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 600 , 77 Pac. 1058 (1904). The amount of the damage is within the discretion of the jury, under proper instructions. The jury is given considerable latitude in making such determination as to it seems just. Aronson v. Everett, 136 Wash. 312 , 239 Pac. 1011 (1925); Ticknor v. Seattle-Renton Stage Line, 139 Wash. 354 , 247 Pac. 1 (1926). The subject matter being difficult of proof, it cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty by the proof. Once the determination is made, an appellate court will give great weight to, and is reluc tant to interfere with, the jury’s verdict. Kellerher v. Porter, 29 Wn.(2d) 650, 189 P.(2d) 223 (1948). On the other hand, the balancing factor is the conscience of the appellate court, when there is an affirmative showing that passion and prejudice played no part in the jury’s determination. Is the amount flagrantly outrageous and extravagant? Is it unjustified in the light of th”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor. (2) A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. (3) A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Al contention presented for the first time in the reply brief will not receive consideration on appeal.”
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.