98 Wash. 2d 434 - Wilson v. Steinbach’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1,002 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,004 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably 118 Wash. 2d 801 - Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley (1992), 112 Wash. 2d 216 - Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1989)
1,002 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 83 Wash. 2d 491 - Morris v. McNicol · 97 Wash. 2d 203 - Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Wiscomb · 81 Wash. 2d 528 - Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co. · 87 Wash. 2d 6 - Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of Seattle · 94 Wash. 2d 640 - Barrie v. Hosts of America, Inc.
Cited together with 106 Wash. 2d 1 - Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co. · 103 Wash. 2d 768 - Hartley v. State · 114 Wash. 2d 271 - Marincovich v. Tarabochia · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · 112 Wash. 2d 216 - Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, 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 1,004 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
91 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Halvorson , we recognized and adopted the general common law rule of nonliability for furnishing intoxicants to an able-bodied person, while simultaneously recognizing the exceptions to the rule for obviously intoxicated persons, persons in a state of helplessness, or persons in a special relationship to the furnisher of intoxicants.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not a tort to either sell or give intoxicating liquor to ordinary able-bodied men, and it has been frequently held that, in the absence of statute, there can be no cause of action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished. . . . (Footnotes omitted.) 30 Am. Jur. Intoxicating Liquors § 520 (1958). It is generally held that there can be no cause of action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished, even though the liquor was sold or given to one in violation of a law other than under a civil damage act, so long as the person to whom the liquor was sold or given was not in such a state of helplessness or debauchery as to be deprived of his will power or responsibility for his behavior. (Footnotes omitted.) 30 Am. Jur. Intoxicating Liquors § 521 (1958).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.