Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc.green2 sentences2024App. 488, 497 , 41 P.3d 506 (2002), which Eagle West relies on, appears to have been first formulated and applied in Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc., 106 Wn. 2007See, e.g., Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc., 106 Wn. | 2 | 3 |
Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc., 106 Wash.App. 54 , 21 P.3d 1174 (2001). ¶ 4 We hold that merely showing intent to defend before a case is filed is not enough to qualify as an appearance in court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gutz v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2007Additionally, I would affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling in Gutz v. Johnson, 128 Wash.App. 901 , 117 P.3d 390 (2005), rather than remanding the case to the trial court to consider the CR 60 issue. ¶ 32 As the majority recognizes, default judgments are disfavored. 2007Additionally, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Gutz v. Johnson, 128 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Gage v. Boeing Company
green
2 sentences2024The Morin court explicitly rejected the informal appearance doctrine applied by previous case law, such as Gage v. Boeing Co., 55 Wn. 2024App. 157, 160 , 776 P.2d 991 (1989).3 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 756, 760. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Colacurcio v. Burger
green
1 sentence2024App. 488, 497 , 41 P.3d 506 (2002), which Eagle West relies on, appears to have been first formulated and applied in Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc., 106 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Colacurcio v. Burger
green
1 sentence2024In applying CR 55 and CR 60 3 The informal appearance doctrine as applied in Colacurcio v. Burger, 110 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gutz v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2007Additionally, I would affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling in Gutz v. Johnson, 128 Wash.App. 901 , 117 P.3d 390 (2005), rather than remanding the case to the trial court to consider the CR 60 issue. ¶ 32 As the majority recognizes, default judgments are disfavored. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Arnold
green
1 sentence2005Arnold, 110 P.3d at 263 . [6] ¶ 33 Thus, to determine whether Allstate informally appeared in order to trigger CR 55(a)(3)'s notice requirement, we review whether sufficient evidence demonstrates Allstate's unquestionable intent to defend the Gutzes' lawsuit. ¶ 34 Here, the record demonstrates that Allstate, on behalf of Johnson, its insured, consistently attempted to resolve the Gutzes' claims and lawsuit for approximately three years from January 2001 to December 2003. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Smith v. Arnold
green
1 sentence2005Arnold, 127 Wn. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.