Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders LP’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2015
16 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 118 Wash. 2d 46 - Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. · 128 Wash. 2d 508 - Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology · 104 Wash. 2d 677 - Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. · 113 Wash. 2d 346 - Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc. · In Re Sehome Park Care Center, 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]gricultural activities conducted on farmland and forest practices, if consistent with good agricultural and forest practices and established prior to surrounding nonagricultural and nonforestry activities, are presumed to be reasonable and shall not be found to constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“An agricultural activity is presumed to be reasonable and shall not constitute a nuisance when: (1) the activity does not have a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety; (2) the activity is consistent with good agricultural practices, laws, and rules; and (3) the activity was established prior to surrounding nonagricultural activities.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he nuisance protection afforded by the Right-to-Farm Act must be applied cautiously and narrowly. RCW 7.48.305 should not be read to insulate agricultural enterprises from nuisance actions brought by an agricultural or other rural plaintiff, especially if the plaintiff occupied the land before the nuisance activity was established.”
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.