71 Wash. 2d 414 - Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably 87 Wash. 2d 516 - Rasor v. Retail Credit Co. (1976), 4 Wash. App. 14 - Hunt v. King County (1971)
32 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 Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State · 42 Wash. 2d 316 - McLeod v. Grant County School District No. 128 · Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital · 4 Wash. 2d 309 - Berglund v. Spokane County · 43 Wash. 2d 386 - Kramer v. Portland-Seattle Auto Freight, Inc.
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.
“"there need be no evidence which assigns an actual dollar value to the injury." . . . '"The subject matter being difficult of proof, [the amount of damages] cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty by the proof."'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“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”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well established that, on the question of foreseeability, the pertinent inquiry is not whether the actual harm sustained by Mrs. Adams was of a particular kind which was expectable, but whether the actual harm fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated. Fleming v. Seattle, 45 Wn.2d 477 , 275 P.2d 904 (1954); McLeod v. Grant Cy. School Dist., 42 Wn.2d 316 , 255 P.2d 360 (1953); Berglund v. Spokane Cy., 4 Wn.2d 309 , 103 P.2d 355 (1940).”
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.