cross claim in Washington

2013App. 419, 424-25 , 628 P.2d 851 (1981) (holding that party waived subject matter jurisdiction defense by filing a cross claim).

2006App. 419, 425 , 628 P.2d 851 (1981) (foreign corporation that filed a cross claim for indemnity against Washington corporation invoked the jurisdiction of Washington court).

2019Krikava v. Webber, 43 Wn.

2004Krikava v. Webber, 43 Wn.

2014Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 473 , 965 P.2d 593 (1998). 30 No. 79761-7 Cross's defense team, which consisted of two attorneys, two investigators, and a mitigation specialist, conducted prompt and adequate investigation in this case.

2014Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 473 , 965 P.2d 593 (1998). ¶68 Cross’s defense team, which consisted of two attorneys, two investigators, and a mitigation specialist, conducted prompt and adequate investigation in this case.

2014Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 303 , 868 P.2d 835 (1994). ¶93 Even if Cross was not barred from making this claim, Cross’s claim would still fail because there was no deficient performance.

2014Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 303 , 868 P.2d 835 (1994). ¶93 Even if Cross was not barred from making this claim, Cross’s claim would still fail because there was no deficient performance.

2014Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 473 , 965 P.2d 593 (1998). 30 No. 79761-7 Cross's defense team, which consisted of two attorneys, two investigators, and a mitigation specialist, conducted prompt and adequate investigation in this case.

2014Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 473 , 965 P.2d 593 (1998). ¶68 Cross’s defense team, which consisted of two attorneys, two investigators, and a mitigation specialist, conducted prompt and adequate investigation in this case.

2004Regarding amended pleadings, CR 15(c) states: “Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” CR 15 “ ‘facilitate [s] a proper decision on the merits.’ ” Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987) (quoting Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 100 Wn.2d 343, 349 , 670 P.2d 240 (1983)).

2004Regarding amended pleadings, CR 15(c) states: “Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” CR 15 “ ‘facilitate [s] a proper decision on the merits.’ ” Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987) (quoting Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 100 Wn.2d 343, 349 , 670 P.2d 240 (1983)).

2004Regarding amended pleadings, CR 15(c) states: “Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” CR 15 “ ‘facilitate [s] a proper decision on the merits.’ ” Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987) (quoting Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 100 Wn.2d 343, 349 , 670 P.2d 240 (1983)).

2004Regarding amended pleadings, CR 15(c) states: “Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” CR 15 “ ‘facilitate [s] a proper decision on the merits.’ ” Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987) (quoting Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 100 Wn.2d 343, 349 , 670 P.2d 240 (1983)).

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 , 112 S.Ct. 2538 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (holding statements made at a Ku Klux Klan rally advocating violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech); N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 902 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) (holding civil rights protestor's admonition to crowd that "`If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck'" was prote

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S. Ct. 1827 , 23 L.

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S. Ct. 1827 , 23 L.

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S. Ct. 1827 , 23 L.

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 , 112 S.Ct. 2538 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (holding statements made at a Ku Klux Klan rally advocating violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech); N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 902 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) (holding civil rights protestor's admonition to crowd that "`If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck'" was prote

2001R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377 , 112 S.Ct. 2538 (overturning conviction of a juvenile for burning a cross in violation of a content-based speech ordinance); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (holding statements made at a Ku Klux Klan rally advocating violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech); N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 902 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) (holding civil rights protestor's admonition to crowd that "`If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck'" was prote

2020Aba Sheikh, 156 Wn.2d at 447 .

2020Our case law at the time of Petersen indicated “introduction by the patient of medical testimony describing the treatment and diagnosis of an illness waive[d] the privilege as to that illness, and the patient's own testimony to such matters has the same effect.” Carson, 123 Wn.2d at 213 (citing Randa v. Bear, 50 Wn.2d 415, 421 , 312 P.2d 640 (1957) (respondent waived physician-patient privilege when she filed a cross claim relating to the medical service contract); McUne, 42 Wn.2d at 76 (when a patient introduces medical testimony about an ailment, he waives privilege as to that ailment)).

2020Our case law at the time of Petersen indicated “introduction by the patient of medical testimony describing the treatment and diagnosis of an illness waive[d] the privilege as to that illness, and the patient's own testimony to such matters has the same effect.” Carson, 123 Wn.2d at 213 (citing Randa v. Bear, 50 Wn.2d 415, 421 , 312 P.2d 640 (1957) (respondent waived physician-patient privilege when she filed a cross claim relating to the medical service contract); McUne, 42 Wn.2d at 76 (when a patient introduces medical testimony about an ailment, he waives privilege as to that ailment)).

2020Our case law at the time of Petersen indicated “introduction by the patient of medical testimony describing the treatment and diagnosis of an illness waive[d] the privilege as to that illness, and the patient's own testimony to such matters has the same effect.” Carson, 123 Wn.2d at 213 (citing Randa v. Bear, 50 Wn.2d 415, 421 , 312 P.2d 640 (1957) (respondent waived physician-patient privilege when she filed a cross claim relating to the medical service contract); McUne, 42 Wn.2d at 76 (when a patient introduces medical testimony about an ailment, he waives privilege as to that ailment)).

2017Washington State Patrol, 185 Wn.2d 363 ,374 PJd 63 (2016).

2017Id. at 77 .

2014The trial judge accepted Cross's plea 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2014The trial judge accepted Cross's plea 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2014App. 977, 982 , 947 P.2d 1235 (1997). ¶80 Here, Cross’s claims fail because there is no evidence that Cross would have refused to enter his Alford plea; the trial court properly found that Cross’s plea was voluntary, intelligent, and knowingly given.

2010Tingey v. Haisch, 159 Wn.2d 652, 663-64 , 152 P.3d 1020 (2007). ¶28 RCW 4.84.185 provides that the court having jurisdiction of a civil action may, upon written findings by the judge that “the action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause, require the nonprevailing party to pay the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including fees of attorneys, incurred in opposing such action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense.” The terms “counterclaim,” “cross-claim,” and “third party claim” are explicitly si

2010Tingey v. Haisch, 159 Wn.2d 652, 663-64 , 152 P.3d 1020 (2007). ¶28 RCW 4.84.185 provides that the court having jurisdiction of a civil action may, upon written findings by the judge that “the action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause, require the nonprevailing party to pay the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including fees of attorneys, incurred in opposing such action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense.” The terms “counterclaim,” “cross-claim,” and “third party claim” are explicitly si

2010Id. at 140 .

2008Id. at 231 .

2005Public confidence in the legal system may be eroded by the spectacle of lawyers squabbling over the could-have-beens of a concluded lawsuit, even when the client has indicated no dissatisfaction with the outcome." Id. at 67 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 389 . [12] Id. [13] 74 Cal.App.4th 869 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 (1999). [14] Id. at 871 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 .

2005Public confidence in the legal system may be eroded by the spectacle of lawyers squabbling over the could-have-beens of a concluded lawsuit, even when the client has indicated no dissatisfaction with the outcome." Id. at 67 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 389 . [12] Id. [13] 74 Cal.App.4th 869 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 (1999). [14] Id. at 871 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 .

2005Public confidence in the legal system may be eroded by the spectacle of lawyers squabbling over the could-have-beens of a concluded lawsuit, even when the client has indicated no dissatisfaction with the outcome." Id. at 67 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 389 . [12] Id. [13] 74 Cal.App.4th 869 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 (1999). [14] Id. at 871 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 .

2005Public confidence in the legal system may be eroded by the spectacle of lawyers squabbling over the could-have-beens of a concluded lawsuit, even when the client has indicated no dissatisfaction with the outcome." Id. at 67 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 389 . [12] Id. [13] 74 Cal.App.4th 869 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 (1999). [14] Id. at 871 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 .