Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 Wash. 2d 316 - Barnes v. Thomas

96 Wash. 2d 316 - Barnes v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2016

20 state decisions

701981199020002010decided

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 89 Wash. 2d 788 - State v. MacK · State ex rel. Martin v. Superior Court · 91 Wash. 2d 269 - State Ex Rel. Moore v. Houser · State ex rel. Waterman v. Superior Court for Spokane County · 43 Wash. 2d 657 - Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Molitor

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

  1. “a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only where the tribunal is clearly and inarguably acting in a matter where there is an inherent, entire lack of jurisdiction: the writ of prohibition will only issue where there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. State ex rel. New York Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Wn. (2d) 834, 199 P. (2d) 581 [1948]; Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1028 . . . But where the court is attempting to proceed entirely without jurisdiction, we have held that the remedy by appeal is inadequate and prohibition will lie.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]otal and inarguable absence of jurisdiction cannot be adequately remedied by appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If a recipient receives public assistance and/or food stamps ... in an amount greater than that for which he is eligible, the portion of the payment to which he is not entitled shall be a debt due the state . . . Debts due the state pursuant to the provisions of this section, may be recovered by the state by deduction from the subsequent assistance payments to such persons . . . or may be recovered by a civil action instituted by the attorney general.”
    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.