21 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406, 418 , 745 P.2d 1284 (1987). ¶8 A second, oft-cited rationale for this doctrine is the theory that the owner’s negligence in failing to remedy a dangerous condition upon the land is an intervening cause, which breaks the chain of causation and cuts off the contractor’s liability. 2007See Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406, 418 , 745 P.2d 1284 (1987). ¶8 A second, oft-cited rationale for this doctrine is the theory that the owner’s negligence in failing to remedy a dangerous condition upon the land is an intervening cause, which breaks the chain of causation and cuts off the contractor’s liability. | 2 | 2 |
Tex Enterprises, Inc. v. Brockway Standard, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Tex Enters., 149 Wn.2d at 212 ( explaining that implied warranties are more " closely guarded" because, unlike express warranties, they arise by operation of sale with no voluntary action); Baughn, 107 Wn.2d at 151 -52. | 1 | 1 |
Rydde v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2013Rydde, 381 S.C. at 647 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2003It is important to note that the Baughn court would have allowed a plaintiff's express warranty claim to proceed because "[t]he privity requirement is relaxed ... when a manufacturer makes express representations, in advertising or otherwise, to a plaintiff." Id. at 151-52 , 727 P.2d 655 . [2] A few years later in Touchet Valley, this court created an exception to the privity requirement for implied warranties. 2003It is important to note that the Baughn court would have allowed a plaintiff’s express warranty claim to proceed because “[t]he privity requirement is relaxed. . . when a manufacturer makes express representations, in advertising or otherwise, to a plaintiff.” Id. at 151-52 . 2 A few years later in Touchet Valley, this court created an exception to the privity requirement for implied warranties. | 3 | 2003–2015 |
Hackler v. Hackler
green
2 sentences2005This exception applies to certain interested witnesses in the prior adjudication: “One who was a witness in an action, fully acquainted with its character and object and interested in its results, is estopped by the judgment as fully as if he had been a party.” Hackler, 37 Wn. 2005This exception applies to certain interested witnesses in the prior adjudication: "One who was a witness in an action, fully acquainted with its character and object and interested in its results, is estopped by the judgment as fully as if he had been a party." Hackler, 37 Wash.App. at 795 , 683 P.2d 241 . | 3 | 1991–2005 |
In Re the Election Contest Filed by Coday
green
2 sentences2008Coday, 156 Wash.2d at 501 , 130 P.3d 809 . 2008Coday, 156 Wn.2d at 501 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Pinter v. Dahl
green
2 sentences2002In Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 , 108 S.Ct. 2063 , 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a strict privity analysis in construing the federal securities statute analogous to this provision. 2002In Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 , 108 S.Ct. 2063 , 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a strict privity analysis in construing the federal securities statute analogous to this provision. | 2 | 1989–2002 |
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
2 sentences1998Brin contends that the trial court erred because the Washington Supreme Court rejected a strict privity requirement under RCW 21.20.430(1) in Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 131-32 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987). 1998Brin contends that the trial court erred because the Washington Supreme Court rejected a strict privity requirement under RCW 21.20.430(1) in Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 131-32 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987). | 2 | 1989–1998 |
Schirmer v. Nethercutt
neutral
2 sentences1990Schirmer v. Nethercutt, 157 Wash. 172 , 288 P. 265 (1930). 1990Schirmer v. Nethercutt, 157 Wash. 172 , 288 P. 265 (1930). | 2 | 1985–1990 |
Freeman v. Navarre
green
2 sentences1967At the outset, it might well be observed that this case offers an invitation for “a realistic, judicial analysis and reappraisal of the privity rule.” Freeman v. Navarre, 47 Wn.2d 760 , 289 P.2d 1015 (1955). 1967At the outset, it might well be observed that this case offers an invitation for “a realistic, judicial analysis and reappraisal of the privity rule.” Freeman v. Navarre, 47 Wn.2d 760 , 289 P.2d 1015 (1955). | 2 | 1965–1967 |
Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1964Plaintiff contends that Timken’s conduct amounted to a breach of implied warranty of fitness, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover for damages under the exception to the privity rule as set forth in Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456 , 12 P. (2d) 409 , 88 A.L.R. 1003 (1932). 1964Plaintiff contends that Timken’s conduct amounted to a breach of implied warranty of fitness, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover for damages under the exception to the privity rule as set forth in Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456 , 12 P. (2d) 409 , 88 A.L.R. 1003 (1932). | 2 | 1964–1965 |
Owens v. Kuro
green
2 sentences1987The privity requirement in collateral estoppel is based on the principle that "a stranger's rights cannot be determined in his absence from the controversy." Owens v. Kuro, 56 Wn.2d 564, 568 , 354 P.2d 696 (1960). 1987The privity requirement in collateral estoppel is based on the principle that "a stranger's rights cannot be determined in his absence from the controversy." Owens v. Kuro, 56 Wn.2d 564, 568 , 354 P.2d 696 (1960). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lucas v. Hamm
green
1 sentence1985Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d at 588 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Dipangrazio v. Salamonsen
green
2 sentences1965In the comparatively recent case of Dipangrazio v. Salamonsen, 64 Wn.2d 720 , 393 P.2d 936 , this court was again called upon to consider the liability of a manufacturer to á user who had no privity of contract with either the manufacturer or any other person in the chain of distribution. 1965In the comparatively recent case of Dipangrazio v. Salamonsen, 64 Wn.2d 720 , 393 P.2d 936 , this court was again called upon to consider the liability of a manufacturer to á user who had no privity of contract with either the manufacturer or any other person in the chain of distribution. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1965We stated: The exception to the privity of contract doctrine has been extended in our state to so-called inherently dangerous instrumentalities; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456 , 12 P. (2d) 409 , 15 P. (2d) 1118 , 88 A.L.R. 521 ; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wn. (2d) 458, 139 P. (2d) 706 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1965We stated: The exception to the privity of contract doctrine has been extended in our state to so-called inherently dangerous instrumentalities; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456 , 12 P. (2d) 409 , 15 P. (2d) 1118 , 88 A.L.R. 521 ; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wn. (2d) 458, 139 P. (2d) 706 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
green
2 sentences1955The last *771 jurisdiction to abandon the privity rule in tort cases involving injury to the person was Massachusetts, in Carter v. Yardley & Co., 319 Mass. 92 , 64 N.E. (2d) 693, 164 A.L.R. 559 . 1955The last jurisdiction to abandon the privity rule in tort cases involving injury to the person was Massachusetts, in Carter v. Yardley & Co., 319 Mass. 92 , 64 N. E. (2d) 693, 164 A. L. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
McAfee v. Cargill, Inc.
green
1 sentence1955See discussion of the problems involved in Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., supra ; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., supra . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.