Morgan v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Burns v. City of Seattle (2007), McGee Guest Home v. Department of Social and Health Services (2000)
44 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 128 Wash. 2d 537 - Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham · 128 Wash. 2d 508 - Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology · 115 Wash. 2d 148 - Schmidt v. Cornerstone Investments, Inc. · 108 Wash. 2d 558 - Blair v. Washington State University · 116 Wash. 2d 1 - American Legion Post No. 32 v. City of Walla Walla
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assume that the legislature means exactly what it says,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““Fault” includes acts or omissions, . . . that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person.... The term also includes . . . unreasonable assumption of risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. Legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault. A comparison of fault for any purpose under RCW 4.22.005 through 4.22.060 shall involve consideration of both the nature of the conduct of the parties to the action and the extent of the causal relation between such conduct and the damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We decide in this case if the intoxication defense established in RCW 5.40.060 applies to an intentional tort. Under the plain language of that statute, the defense may he asserted only where plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the occurrence which caused the plaintiff’s injuries or death, the intoxication was a proximate cause of the injuries or death, and the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault. In utilizing “fault,” a term of art under RCW 4.22.015, the Legislature plainly meant the intoxication defense is unavailable in intentional tort actions.”
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.