28 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pedroza v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2001Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226, 228 , 677 P.2d 166 (1984). 2001Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226, 228 , 677 P.2d 166 (1984). | 2 | 4 |
Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Ass'n v. Boeing Co.green2 sentences2006See Seattle Prof'l Eng'g Employees Ass'n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wash.2d 824, 831 , 991 P.2d 1126 (2000). 2006See Seattle Prof’l Eng’g Employees Ass’n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wn.2d 824, 831 , 991 P.2d 1126 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
SPEEA v. Boeing Co.green2 sentences2006See Seattle Prof'l Eng'g Employees Ass'n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wash.2d 824, 831 , 991 P.2d 1126 (2000). 2006See Seattle Prof’l Eng’g Employees Ass’n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wn.2d 824, 831 , 991 P.2d 1126 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Mordechai Gurary v. Isaac Winehouse and Isaac Winehouse, Doing Business as Wall & Broad Equities, Nu-Tech Bio-Med, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete 2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir. 2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under “Rule 10b-5” (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) 38 because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete is | 2 | 2 |
Hansen v. Friendgreen2 sentences1998See Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wn.2d 476, 479 , 824 P.2d 483 (1992) (citing Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226, 228 , 677 P.2d 166 (1984)). 1998See Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wn.2d 476, 479 , 824 P.2d 483 (1992) (citing Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226, 228 , 677 P.2d 166 (1984)). | 2 | 2 |
Gadbury v. Bleitzgreen2 sentences2008See Gadbury, 133 Wash. at 137-38 , 233 P. 299 ("[T]he extent or degree of the misuse ought not to prevent recovery."). ¶ 35 This court first recognized an actionable claim of the tort for an improper burial in Wright , where an undertaker had buried the corpse of a child in the same grave as another body and only six inches from the surface. 46 Wash. at 17 , 89 P. 172 . 2008See Gadbury, 133 Wash. at 137-38 , 233 P. 299 ("[T]he extent or degree of the misuse ought not to prevent recovery."). ¶ 35 This court first recognized an actionable claim of the tort for an improper burial in Wright , where an undertaker had buried the corpse of a child in the same grave as another body and only six inches from the surface. 46 Wash. at 17 , 89 P. 172 . | 1 | 2 |
Reynolds v. Hicksgreen2 sentences1999Under Washington tort law, "to prove an actionable claim for negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty to the complaining party, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury." Id. at 495, 951 P.2d 761 . 1998See Reynolds, 951 P.2d at 763 . | 1 | 2 |
Wright v. Beardsleygreen2 sentences2008See Gadbury, 133 Wash. at 137-38 , 233 P. 299 ("[T]he extent or degree of the misuse ought not to prevent recovery."). ¶ 35 This court first recognized an actionable claim of the tort for an improper burial in Wright , where an undertaker had buried the corpse of a child in the same grave as another body and only six inches from the surface. 46 Wash. at 17 , 89 P. 172 . 2008See Gadbury, 133 Wash. at 137-38 , 233 P. 299 ("[T]he extent or degree of the misuse ought not to prevent recovery."). ¶ 35 This court first recognized an actionable claim of the tort for an improper burial in Wright , where an undertaker had buried the corpse of a child in the same grave as another body and only six inches from the surface. 46 Wash. at 17 , 89 P. 172 . | 1 | 1 |
Carole Tomka v. The Seiler Corporation, Daniel Lucey, David Polonsky and Timothy Conroygreen1 sentence1999“Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employer’s conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65 , 106 S.Ct. at 2404 ; Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2nd Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Coventry Associates v. Am. States Ins. Co.green1 sentence1999See Coventry, 136 Wash.2d at 280 , 961 P.2d 933 ("As long as the insurance company acts with honesty, bases its decision on adequate information, and does not overemphasize its own interests, an insured is not entitled to base a bad faith or CPA claim against its insurer on the basis of a good faith mistake."). | 1 | 1 |
Annabelle Lipsett v. University of Puerto Ricogreen1 sentence1999MSJ argues: i) plaintiffs are unable to prove that the alleged conduct was pervasive and severe enough to create a hostile work environment; see Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 897 (not all conduct that'may be characterized as harassment rises to the level of an actionable claim) and ii) the alleged hostile environment cannot be imputed to the MSJ because Colón and Rodriguez were not municipal employees and the MSJ did not have knowledge of the alleged conduct. | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Hicksgreen1 sentence1998See Reynolds, 134 Wn.2d at 495 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parrilla v. King County
green
2 sentences2010Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wash.App. 427, 432 , 157 P.3d 879 (2007). 2010Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wn. | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Parrilla v. King County
green
2 sentences2010Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wash.App. 427, 432 , 157 P.3d 879 (2007). 2010Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wash.App. 427, 432 , 157 P.3d 879 (2007). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co.
green
2 sentences2008The owners sued for implied warranty of habitability amongst other theories. ¶ 25 The builders moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted their motion, concluding that "even if Atherton was not constructed in compliance with UBC fire resistivity standards, Owners did not have an actionable claim." Atherton, 115 Wash.2d at 514 , 799 P.2d 250 . 2008The owners sued for implied warranty of habitability among other theories. ¶25 The builders moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion, concluding that “even if Atherton was not constructed in compliance with UBC fire resistivity standards, Owners did not have an actionable claim.” Atherton, 115 Wn.2d at 514 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406 , 745 P.2d 1284 (1987). 2008The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406 , 745 P.2d 1284 (1987). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Rodger M. Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., and Odis E. Shoaf, Jr.
green
2 sentences2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete 2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir. 2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under “Rule 10b-5” (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) 38 because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete is | 2 | 2005–2005 |
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2005Morgan, 536 U.S. at 118 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 . 2005Morgan, 536 U.S. at 118 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Craig v. First American Capital Resources, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete 2005Capital Res., Inc., 740 F. Supp. 530 (N.D. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Gausvik v. Abbey
green
1 sentence2022“In order to state an actionable claim, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove both cause in fact and legal causation.” Gausvik v. Abbey, 126 Wn. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gausvik v. Abbey
green
1 sentence2022App. 868, 885 , 107 P.3d 98 (2005). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance
green
1 sentence2021Injuries that raise an actionable claim under the CPA are “relatively expansive,” and include those that are “both 29 No. 54904-2-II minimal and temporary.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hegel v. McMahon
green
1 sentence2011“In order to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff’s emotional response must be reasonable under the circumstances, and be corroborated by objective symptomatology.” Hegel v. McMahon, 136 Wn.2d 122, 132 , 960 P.2d 424 (1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Marzolf v. Stone
green
1 sentence2011“In order to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff’s emotional response must be reasonable under the circumstances, and be corroborated by objective symptomatology.” Hegel v. McMahon, 136 Wn.2d 122, 132 , 960 P.2d 424 (1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Herzl Congregation v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2008Id. (recognizing that a cause of action for wrongful mutilation “applies as well to a case such as the one at bar where the wrong consists of the manner of burial”). ¶36 Later, in Gadbury , this court upheld a claim where an undertaker withheld a body from the mother of the deceased as collateral for payment of funeral expenses. 133 Wash. 134 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,000 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Edward E. Holschuh
green
1 sentence2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
1 sentence2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Schmidt v. Cornerstone Investments, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete 2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hines v. Data Line Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete 2005See Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir.N.Y.2000) (The court held an alleged misrepresentation that occurred after the first in a series of discrete stock purchases could not give rise to a cause of action under "Rule 10-b" (the federal analogue to RCW 21.20.010) [38] because the purchase occurred before any alleged deception began and the deception could therefore not have been in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.); Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996) (The failure to give a seller the name of a buyer several months after a stock sale is complete | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson
green
2 sentences1999“Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employer’s conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65 , 106 S.Ct. at 2404 ; Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2nd Cir.1995). 1999“Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employer’s conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65 , 106 S.Ct. at 2404 ; Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2nd Cir.1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Hostetler v. Ward green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Cherberg v. Peoples National Bank green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Walker v. Pacific Indemnity Co. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.