Thompson v. Katzer’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2013
5 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 124 Wash. 2d 121 - Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society · State in Interest of JRT v. Timperly · 93 Wash. 2d 127 - Egede-Nissen v. Crystal Mountain, Inc. · 110 Wash. 2d 128 - Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM. · 106 Wash. 2d 658 - Younce v. Ferguson
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.
“[t]he ultimate goal is to differentiate (1) an entry made for a business or economic purpose that benefits both entrant and occupier, from (2) an entry made for a purpose that either (a) benefits only the entrant or (b) is primarily familial or social.”
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.