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 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Amalgamated, 142 Wash.2d at 216-17 , 11 P.3d 762 (emphasis added). 2003Amalgamated, 142 Wn.2d at 216-17 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County
green
2 sentences2000The Campaign also says that all the preexisting authority of respondents remains, but it is now further conditioned. 20 Amalgamated Transit and the Tacoma Water respondents rely on Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 731 , 592 P.2d 1108 (1979) for the proposition that the test for whether a new enactment is an amendment which must set forth the text of existing statutes is “whether [the new act] changes [the] prior act in scope and effect.” Amalgamated Transit says that 1-695 substantially alters the scope and effect of many statutes relating to voter approval of local enactments wi 2000The Campaign also says that all the preexisting authority of respondents remains, but it is now further conditioned. 20 Amalgamated Transit and the Tacoma Water respondents rely on Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 731 , 592 P.2d 1108 (1979) for the proposition that the test for whether a new enactment is an amendment which must set forth the text of existing statutes is “whether [the new act] changes [the] prior act in scope and effect.” Amalgamated Transit says that 1-695 substantially alters the scope and effect of many statutes relating to voter approval of local enactments wi | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution
green
1 sentence2018In Spokane Moves, the Supreme Court considered whether a local initiative requiring “any proposed zoning changes involving large developments to be approved by voters in the neighborhood” was administrative. 185 Wn.2d at 108 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Amalgamated Transit v. State
green
1 sentence2003Amalgamated, 142 Wash.2d at 216-17 , 11 P.3d 762 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.