Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 WASHAPP 358 - Trimm v. Davis

Trimm v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2011

6 state decisions

40199920002010decided

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 Tate v. United States · 82 Wash. 2d 736 - In Re Welfare of Sego · 89 Wash. 2d 613 - State v. Young · Dean v. Jordan · 51 Wash. App. 285 - Miller v. Badgley

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

  1. “Finding of Fact 1.10. The [Trimms] presented no evidence at trial to support the claim of improper execution. Finding of Fact 80 (portion). The witnesses [Mr. Hertog, his law partner Barbara Coster, and their legal assistant Anne Galt] signed the Will in the presence of Mrs. Kessler on March 22, 1996, and at a later date signed an Affidavit of Attesting Witnesses.[ [49] ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Every will shall be in writing signed by the testator or by some other person under the testator's direction in the testator's presence, and shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, by subscribing their names to the will ... in the presence of the testator and at the testator's direction or request ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[18] Thus, in considering the question whether the Trimms acted in good faith and on probable cause in contesting the will in the specific context of each of their claims below, we have treated that question and the question whether they prevailed on the merits as two distinct questions. To do otherwise”
    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.