82 Wash. App. 209 - Flint v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Hutchinson (1998), Bouten Construction Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co. (1999)
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 109
Relies on Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. · 74 Wash. 2d 25 - Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co. · 84 Wash. 2d 239 - King v. City of Seattle · 106 Wash. 2d 443 - Smith v. King · 71 Wash. App. 120 - Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If applied categorically, the independent business judgment rule eliminates any potential for further negligence claims following settlement of a claim. In so doing, the rule discourages settlement, particularly in those cases in which the very predicament, which prompts settlement in the first place, is the result of another's negligence.... Many settlements are a reasonable response to a difficult situation created by another's negligence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The mitigation of damages doctrine was inapplicable because the question of whether the Kings had a duty to mitigate presupposed that the City was legally liable for their damages in the first place. And legal liability never arose because the Kings, presumably in an attempt to mitigate their damages, decided to abandon the project.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“was the result of a mistake made by Commonwealth. The court pointed out that, having been put into a difficult position, Marsh evaluated the risk that his note may be pulled into the bankruptcy proceeding as an unsecured asset and decided to settle. He may have prevailed, but”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.