Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Wash. App. 934 - Johnson v. State

77 Wash. App. 934 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
4
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Niece v. Elmview Group Home (1997), Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner (1997)

62 state decisions

3101995200020102020decided

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 103 Wash. 2d 768 - Hartley v. State · 36 Cal. 3d 799 - Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District · 111 Wash. 2d 159 - Taylor v. Stevens County · 42 Wash. 2d 316 - McLeod v. Grant County School District No. 128 · Nero v. Kansas State University

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

  1. “`so highly extraordinary or improbable as to be wholly beyond the range of expectability.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “pertinent inquiry is not whether the actual harm was of a particular kind which was expectable. Rather, the question is whether the actual harm fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Once a duty is established, any issues of fact regarding breach of duty and whether breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries are normally left for the fact finder.”
    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.