82 Wash. App. 87 - Seizer v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 98 Wash. 2d 434 - Wilson v. Steinbach · 118 Wash. 2d 383 - Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Butler · 123 Wash. 2d 93 - Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co. · 124 Wash. 2d 205 - Rice v. Dow Chemical Co. · 87 Wash. 2d 577 - Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The interest of a spouse in a movable acquired by the other spouse during the marriage is determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the movable under the principles stated in § 6. (2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the spouses, greater weight will usually be given to the state where the spouses were domiciled at the time the movable was acquired than to any other contact in determining the state of the applicable law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Of the factors listed in Subsection (2) of § 6, that which is of particular importance in the present context is the one which calls for implementation of the relevant policies of the state with the dominant interest in the determination of the particular issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Seizer v. Sessions
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.