85 Wash. 2d 154 - LaPlante v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
164 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 112 Wash. 2d 216 - Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1989), 103 Wash. 2d 768 - Hartley v. State (1985)
164 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
Relies on Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State · 55 Wash. 2d 678 - Preston v. Duncan · 73 Wash. 2d 434 - W. G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts · 76 Wash. 2d 501 - Regan v. City of Seattle · 36 Wash. 2d 256 - Cook v. Seidenverg
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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“While issues of negligence and proximate cause are not generally susceptible to summary adjudication, courts are not precluded from rendering such judgments. The issues of negligence and proximate cause must be accorded the same treatment as any other following a motion for summary judgment, i.e. , if the court determines there is no genuine issue of material fact then it must determine whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Further, where the facts are undisputed and do not admit of reasonable differences of opinion, the question of proximate cause is one of law subject to review by this court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“demonstrate there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
3 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.