77 Wash. 2d 879 - Ware v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 28 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is fundamental that a notice to be meaningful must apprise the party to whom it is directed that his person or property is in jeopardy. In the leading case of Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 , 17 S.Ct. 841 , 42 L.Ed.2d 215 (1897), the United States Supreme Court held that a court could not punish a defendant for contempt in a civil action by depriving him of the right to defend. The court in that case was primarily concerned with the right to be heard, but its reasoning was that, without such right, the right to notice was meaningless, and it made it clear that notice itself, in order to be adequate, must apprise a party that judgment will be entered against him if he does not appear. * * * * * * The flaw in the writ, and in the statute authorizing it, ... is that no notice was provided that a claim was being asserted against the garnishees or that a judgment might be taken against them if they failed to answer. They were not apprised that their property was in jeopardy, and the judgment against them, rendered without such notice, was void because they were not accorded due process of law. .. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 478 So. 2d 353 - Carpenter v. Benson

2. “a defendant has a right to allow a default to be taken against him secure in the knowledge that the judgment or decree will not exceed the demand of the complaint. The principle upon which such a rule rests is that the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief beyond that which the allegations and prayer of the complaint may seek. If, upon the hearing of the matter before the court, the complaining party desires additional relief, or if the court feels that other or additional relief should be awarded, the defendant is entitled to have notice given to him and an opportunity to be heard on the merits thereof; otherwise, he is denied procedural due process of law in violation of § 3, Art. I, of our constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 106 Wash. 2d 328 - Burlingame v. Consolidated Mines and Smelting Co., Ltd.

3. ““It is elementary law that a default judgment cannot award any relief beyond that which the facts alleged in the complaint in the action show the plaintiff legally entitled to. This also means, of course, that, if a complaint wholly fails to state' facts legally entitling the plaintiff to any recovery, or states facts affirmatively showing that the plaintiff has no right of recovery, as those complaints did, a default judgment rendered thereon is void just as such a default judgment would be void in so far as it awarded relief beyond that which the allegations of the complaint showed the plaintiff legally entitled to.” (Emphasis added) 207 P. at 31-32 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 23 Ariz. App. 123 - Walls v. Stewart Building & Roofing Supply, Inc.