Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Wash. App. 228 - Bishop v. State

77 Wash. App. 228 - Bishop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Robel v. Roundup Corp. (2002), Snyder v. Medical Service Corp. (2001)

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

210199520002010decided

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 Rodrigues v. State · 87 Wash. 2d 424 - Hunsley v. Giard · 100 Wash. 2d 275 - Chambers-Castanes v. King County · Raymond v. Paradise Unified School District · 89 Wash. 2d 959 - Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The utility of permitting employers to handle workplace disputes outweighs the risk of harm to employees who may exhibit symptoms of emotional distress as a result. The employers, not the courts, are in the best position to determine whether such disputes should be resolved by employee counseling, discipline, transfers, terminations or no action at all. While such actions undoubtedly are stressful to impacted employees, the courts cannot guarantee a stress-free workplace. Therefore, we hold that absent a statutory or public policy mandate, employers do not owe employees a duty to use reasonable care to avoid the inadvertent infliction of emotional distress when responding to workplace disputes.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`defendant's obligation to refrain from particular conduct is owed only to those who are foreseeably endangered by the conduct and only with respect to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonably dangerous.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`Conduct is unreasonably dangerous when its risks outweigh its utility.'”
    2 later decisions 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.