97 Wash. 2d 360 - Brown v. McAnally’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS (2002), 105 Wash. 2d 366 - Brown v. Voss (1986)
34 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 Solana Land Co. v. Murphey · State ex rel. Carlson v. Superior Court · Neitzel v. Spokane International Railway Co. · 11 Wash. 2d 545 - State Ex Rel. Polson Logging Co. v. Superior Court · 59 Wash. 2d 586 - King County v. Theilman
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An owner, or one entitled to the beneficial use, of land which is so situate with respect to the land of another that it is necessary for its proper use and enjoyment to have and maintain a private way of necessity or to construct or maintain any drain, flume or ditch, on, across, over or through the land of such other, for agricultural, domestic or sanitary purposes, may condemn and take lands of such other sufficient in area for the construction and maintenance of such private way of necessity, or for the construction and maintenance of such drain, flume or ditch, as the case may be.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he statute which gives a landlocked owner a way of necessity over lands of a stranger is not favored in law and thus must be construed strictly. It must be borne in mind that RCW 8.24 authorizes a limited private condemnation proceeding in which the private property rights of one are taken for the benefit of another. The taking is limited to necessary ingress and egress only. It is not extended to those necessities that may be created by the contemplation of a future real estate subdivision development.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the joint use of the private way of necessity must not differ from and must not be incompatible with the use to which it is already being put by the condemnees. In short, it must neither impair nor destroy full use of the existing road by the condemnees.”
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.