Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 Wash. 2d 754 - Loveless v. Yantis

82 Wash. 2d 754 - Loveless v. Yantis’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
6
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 94 Wash. 2d 359 - Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1980), 98 Wash. 2d 690 - Pierce County Sheriff v. Civil Service Commission (1983)

69 state decisions

24019731980199020002010decided

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 Sierra Club v. Morton · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Wolpe v. Poretsky · Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. Appeals · 82 Wash. 2d 475 - Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision ordinance is to encourage the orderly development of land within the County, provide the public with the assurance that certain necessary public facilities will be provided in the new subdivision; provide the public with the assurance that lot sizes, land uses, streets and that [sic] street connections will be in conformance with the County standards; provide the public with the assurance that future plats, subdivisions and dedications will be improved in accordance with an established public policy and to provide a more precise and simpler procedure for the conveyance of titles of small tracts of land. The County authority shall insure that appropriate provision is made in the plat or subdivision for streets and public ways, and shall consider all other facts deemed relevant and designed to indicate whether or not the public interest will be served by the platting, subdividing or dedication. If it is found that the plat, subdivision, or dedication makes appropriate provisions for streets and other public ways, and that the public use and interest will be served by the platting, subdividing, or dedication, then written approval shall be suitably inscribed on the plat, subdivision or dedication.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"* * * [I]n view of the unavailability of the basic records, we are in no position to determine whether there has been `strict conformity with the procedural and substantive terms of the statute,' nor are we able to determine whether the municipal action was arbitrary, capricious or a manifest abuse of discretionary authority."”
    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.