Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 Wash. 2d 280 - O'CONNELL v. Conte

76 Wash. 2d 280 - O'CONNELL v. Conte’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
March 1995
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1995

21 state decisions

1301969197019801990decided

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 55 Wash. 2d 286 - Yelle v. Bishop · 50 Wash. 2d 1 - DeGrief v. City of Seattle · 74 Wash. 2d 82 - Boeing Co. v. State · 54 Wash. 2d 799 - Hogue v. Port of Seattle · 38 Wash. 2d 142 - Senior Citizens League, Inc. v. Department of Social Security

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

  1. “It is not always necessary that statutes and ordinances prescribe a specific rule of action. This is particularly true in those situations where it is difficult or impracticable to declare a definite, comprehensive rule, or where the discretion to be exercised by an administrative officer relates to a regulation imposed for the protection of public morals, health, safety, and general welfare. 11 Am. Jur. 948 , Constitutional Law, § 234.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that the challenged legislation is a legitimate attempt by the legislature to reduce the burden on the taxpayer by forcing the estate of each resident to shoulder a share of the costs of his care and maintenance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is the established rule of law in this state that an enactment is presumptively valid, and the burden is upon the challenger to prove that the questioned classification does not rest upon a reasonable basis.”
    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.