Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 Wash. 2d 854 - Walker v. Bangs

92 Wash. 2d 854 - Walker v. Bangs’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
7
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 119 Wash. 2d 251 - Hizey v. Carpenter (1992), 99 Wash. 2d 438 - Harris v. Groth (1983)

3 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

170197919801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 905

Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson · Hodges v. Carter

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]f the reasons for admitting or excluding the opinion evidence are `fairly debatable,' the trial court's exercise of discretion will not be reversed on appeal”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`that degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in this jurisdiction.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “we find the stated basis for the rejection of the proffered testimony to be the fact that he was not admitted to the Washington bar. We hold that a lawyer not admitted to the Washington bar is not, per se, unqualified as an expert witness in a legal malpractice action in this state. In the instant case, the fact that Allan Brotsky is not licensed to practice in this state should go to the weight, not the admissibility of his testimony, assuming he is otherwise qualified.”
    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.