85 Wash. 2d 321 - Mason v. Bitton’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 103 Wash. 2d 768 - Hartley v. State (1985), Medina v. City & County Denver (1992)
16 federal appellate · 97 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 · 84 Wash. 2d 239 - King v. City of Seattle · 85 Wash. 2d 1 - Campbell v. City of Bellevue · 77 Wash. 2d 800 - Wells v. City of Vancouver · 74 Wash. 2d 36 - State v. Jacobsen
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““We are fully convinced that the initial decision to give or not to give chase, and the decision as to whether to continue the pursuit are properly characterized as operational, and not the ‘basic policy decision’ discussed in King [v. Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239 ,] 525 P.2d 228 [246 (1974)]. To1 now hold that this type of discretion, exercised by police officers in the field, cannot result in liability under RCW 46.-61.035, due to an exception provided for basic policy discretion, would require this Court to close its eyes to the clear intent and purpose of the legislature when it abolished sovereign immunity under RCW 4.96.010. If this type of conduct were immune from liability, the exception would surely engulf the rule, if not totally destroy it. Therefore, we conclude the exception for basic policy discretion does not apply to the facts of this case.” 534 P.2d at 1365 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.”
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.