89 Wash. 2d 916 - Herberg v. Swartz’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably 91 Wash. 2d 230 - Seattle-First National Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co. (1978), 117 Wash. 2d 242 - Douglas v. Freeman (1991)
1 federal appellate · 47 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 Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad · 84 Wash. 2d 975 - Maltman v. Sauer · 89 Wash. 2d 38 - State v. Blight · 68 Wash. 2d 457 - McCurdy v. Union Pacific Railroad · 46 Wash. 2d 240 - Rufener v. Scott
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`An issue, theory or argument not presented at trial will not be considered on appeal,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part (a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and (b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and (c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“trial court also correctly adopted the standards of RCW 70.62 as the duty owed by appellant [landowner] to respondent [neighbor]. That the legislature intended the same protective policy to extend to landowners in the immediate vicinity of the danger is based on the Act, the regulatory standards, and on common sense.”
1 later decision 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.