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 2005–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hintz v. Kitsap Countygreen2 sentences2008See Hintz v. Kitsap County, 92 Wn. 2008See Hintz v. Kitsap County, 92 Wash.App. 10, 14 , 960 P.2d 946 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Hintz v. Kitsap Countygreen1 sentence2008See Hintz v. Kitsap County, 92 Wash.App. 10, 14 , 960 P.2d 946 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Castro v. Stanwood School District No. 401
green
2 sentences2008Castro, 151 Wn.2d at 226 . ¶9 But courts have demanded strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute and dismissed suits for a variety of procedural defects. 2008Castro, 151 Wash.2d at 226 , 86 P.3d 1166 . ¶ 9 But courts have demanded strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute and dismissed suits for a variety of procedural defects. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Goode-Henry, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Burnett, Her Daughter, Deceased v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2005We “avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ‘The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.’ ” Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). 2005We "avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. `The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.'" Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wash.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 , 123 S.Ct. 2221 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2003). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles
green
2 sentences2005We “avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ‘The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.’ ” Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). 2005We "avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. `The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.'" Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wash.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 , 123 S.Ct. 2221 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2003). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Medina v. Public Utility District No. 1
green
2 sentences2005Medina, 147 Wn.2d at 313 . ¶49 The concurrence/dissent seems to suggest that this purpose is less apt when an individual employee is named in a lawsuit rather than the entire governmental entity. 2005Medina, 147 Wash.2d at 313 , 53 P.3d 993 . ¶ 49 The concurrence/dissent seems to suggest that this purpose is less apt when an individual employee is named in a lawsuit rather than the entire governmental entity. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
> FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, TENINO AERIE NO. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles
green
2 sentences2005We “avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ‘The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.’ ” Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). 2005We "avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. `The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.'" Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wash.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 , 123 S.Ct. 2221 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2003). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Day
green
2 sentences2005We “avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ‘The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.’ ” Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). 2005We “avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ‘The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.’ ” Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wn.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Bosteder v. City of Renton
green
1 sentence2014We require strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute. 155 Wn.2d 18, 47 , 117 P. 3d 316 ( 2005), superseded by statute on other grounds, Wright v. Terrell, 162 Wn.2d 192 , 195 n. 1, 170 P. 3d 570 ( 2007). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wright v. Terrell
green
1 sentence2014We require strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute. 155 Wn.2d 18, 47 , 117 P. 3d 316 ( 2005), superseded by statute on other grounds, Wright v. Terrell, 162 Wn.2d 192 , 195 n. 1, 170 P. 3d 570 ( 2007). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wright v. Terrell
green
1 sentence2014We require strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute. 155 Wn.2d 18, 47 , 117 P. 3d 316 ( 2005), superseded by statute on other grounds, Wright v. Terrell, 162 Wn.2d 192 , 195 n. 1, 170 P. 3d 570 ( 2007). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bosteder v. City of Renton
green
1 sentence2014We require strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute. 155 Wn.2d 18, 47 , 117 P. 3d 316 ( 2005), superseded by statute on other grounds, Wright v. Terrell, 162 Wn.2d 192 , 195 n. 1, 170 P. 3d 570 ( 2007). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Castro v. Stanwood School Dist. No. 401
green
1 sentence2008Castro, 151 Wash.2d at 226 , 86 P.3d 1166 . ¶ 9 But courts have demanded strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the claim filing statute and dismissed suits for a variety of procedural defects. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cummings v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2005We "avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. `The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.'" Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wash.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 , 123 S.Ct. 2221 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
green
1 sentence2005We "avoid literal reading of a statute which would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. `The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over . . . express but inept wording.'" Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash.2d 224, 239 , 59 P.3d 655 (2002) (quoting State v. Day, 96 Wash.2d 646, 648 , 638 P.2d 546 (1981)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 , 123 S.Ct. 2221 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Medina v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1
green
1 sentence2005Medina, 147 Wash.2d at 313 , 53 P.3d 993 . ¶ 49 The concurrence/dissent seems to suggest that this purpose is less apt when an individual employee is named in a lawsuit rather than the entire governmental entity. | 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.