88 Wash. App. 669 - Halbert v. Forney’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
July 2000
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 121 Wash. 2d 715 - Kruse v. Hemp · 125 Wash. 2d 544 - Berg v. Ting · 121 Wash. 2d 152 - Wfse v. Ofm · 35 Wash. 2d 223 - Martin v. Seigel · 101 Wash. 2d 88 - Simonson v. Fendell
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.
“Kirkland, STATE OF Washington, RECEIVED OF Rolla & Lynne Halbert the sum of One Thousand and no/100 dollars dollars [sic] ($1,00000 ) as earnest money and part payment for the following described real estate, situated in Kirkland, County of King, State of Washington, described as (insert full legal description): 7522 124th Pl NE Kirkland, Wa 98033”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Halbert v. Forney“[4] the statute seeks to avoid. We have no authority to create a holding that leads to such a result. The Supreme Court's 1949 holding still controls:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Halbert v. Forney“Forney did not have the legal description, but said that the address would do.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Halbert v. Forney
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.