Seizer v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Erwin v. Cotter Health Centers (2007), Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (2005)
28 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 123 Wash. 2d 93 - Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co. · 124 Wash. 2d 205 - Rice v. Dow Chemical Co. · 87 Wash. 2d 577 - Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp. · 125 Wash. 2d 865 - In Re the Marriage of Short · 70 Wash. 2d 893 - Baffin Land Corp. v. MONTICELLO MOT. INN., INC.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied, even if the particular issue is one which the parties could not have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue, unless either (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice, or (b) application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which, under the rule of § 188 would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When parties dispute choice of law, there must be an actual conflict between the laws or interests of Washington and the laws or interests of another state before Washington courts will engage in a conflict of laws analysis.”
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.