5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Mobile Homes of Washington, Inc. v. Seattle-First National Bankgreen1 sentence2024Mobile Homes, 115 Wn.2d at 317-18 (“We hold that the priority rule does not authorize a superior court to make rulings in cases pending in other superior courts.”) (emphasis added); Bunch v. Nationwide Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Mishkind-Feinberg Realty Co. v. . Sidorskygreen2 sentences2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w 2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Martingreen2 sentences2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w 2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1987Superior Court, 225 Cal. Rptr. at 426 . 1987Superior Court, 225 Cal. Rptr. at 426 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Garrett v. Byerly
red
2 sentences1963McHugh v. Mason, 154 Wash. 572 , 283 Pac. 184 (1929), coming under the above statute, hints at the deception rule and anticipates Martin v. Hadenfeldt, supra, though Garrett v. Byerly, 155 Wash. 351 , 284 Pac. 343 , 68 A.L.R. 254 (1930), seems to have revived the old priority rule that the right of way belonged to the vehicle first entering the intersection. 1963McHugh v. Mason, 154 Wash. 572 , 283 Pac. 184 (1929), coming under the above statute, hints at the deception rule and anticipates Martin v. Hadenfeldt, supra, though Garrett v. Byerly, 155 Wash. 351 , 284 Pac. 343 , 68 A.L.R. 254 (1930), seems to have revived the old priority rule that the right of way belonged to the vehicle first entering the intersection. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
McHugh v. Mason
neutral
2 sentences1963McHugh v. Mason, 154 Wash. 572 , 283 Pac. 184 (1929), coming under the above statute, hints at the deception rule and anticipates Martin v. Hadenfeldt, supra, though Garrett v. Byerly, 155 Wash. 351 , 284 Pac. 343 , 68 A.L.R. 254 (1930), seems to have revived the old priority rule that the right of way belonged to the vehicle first entering the intersection. 1963McHugh v. Mason, 154 Wash. 572 , 283 Pac. 184 (1929), coming under the above statute, hints at the deception rule and anticipates Martin v. Hadenfeldt, supra, though Garrett v. Byerly, 155 Wash. 351 , 284 Pac. 343 , 68 A.L.R. 254 (1930), seems to have revived the old priority rule that the right of way belonged to the vehicle first entering the intersection. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
The United States v. Barker
green
1 sentence1942Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. (15 U. S.) 396, 4 L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.