Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 WASHAPP 1 - Scott v. Goldman

Scott v. Goldman’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · Rathbun v. United States · 117 Wash. 2d 148 - Wichert v. Cardwell · United States v. Balanovski · 122 Wash. 2d 829 - Bour v. Johnson

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

  1. “on Goldman's behalf. He argues that initiating a lawsuit and accepting service result in similar consequences for the principal because, in both instances, the attorney-in-fact's actions subject the principal to the jurisdiction of the court. According to Scott, by allowing Brock to initiate a legal action on her behalf, Goldman indicated that she intended to authorize him to accept process also. Neither the statute nor the case law supports this argument.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subsection and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.”
    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.