Mathis v. Ammons’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc. (1998), 100 Wash. App. 885 - DeYoung v. Cenex Ltd. (2000)
25 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 114 Wash. 2d 907 - Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. Kallevig · 118 Wash. 2d 476 - Hansen v. Friend · 101 Wash. 2d 226 - Pedroza v. Bryant · 116 Wash. 2d 217 - Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue Associates · 113 Wash. 2d 479 - Christen v. Lee
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If all reasonable minds would conclude that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, the judge can find negligence as a matter of law. If no reasonable mind could find that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, the judge can find the absence of negligence as a matter of law. In any other case, negligence is an issue for the trier of fact, even when the defendant breached a duty imposed by statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence; however, any breach of duty as provided by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule relating to electrical fire safety, the use of smoke alarms, or driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, shall be considered negligence per se.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he statute’s purposes, exclusively or in part, must be (1) to protect a class of persons that includes the person whose interest is invaded; (2) to protect the particular interest invaded; (3) to protect that interest against the kind of harm that resulted; and (4) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm resulted.”
2 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.