20 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zellmer v. Zellmergreen2 sentences2016The Zellmer court describes this rule as limiting "the scope of conduct protected by the parental immunity doctrine." 164 Wn.2d at 163 . 2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has “substantially limited the scope of parental immunity.” Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P.3d 497 (2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411, 413-15 , 610 P.2d 891 (1980). | 4 | 8 |
Roller v. Rollergreen2 sentences2008That being the case, it is, in my view, unnecessary for us to resolve the question of whether Zellmer was in loco parentis to his stepchild. ¶53 The parental immunity doctrine, which we first recognized in Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905), has heretofore applied only to a birth or adoptive parent (hereinafter parent). 6 See Borst v. Borst, 41 Wn.2d 642, 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (1952); see also DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wn.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959). 2008That being the case, it is, in my view, unnecessary for us to resolve the question of whether Zellmer was in loco parentis to his stepchild. ¶53 The parental immunity doctrine, which we first recognized in Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905), has heretofore applied only to a birth or adoptive parent (hereinafter parent). 6 See Borst v. Borst, 41 Wn.2d 642, 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (1952); see also DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wn.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959). | 4 | 5 |
United States v. Gaubertgreen2 sentences2017See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 321-23 , 111 S. Ct. 1267 , 113 L. 2017See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 321-23 , 111 S. Ct. 1267 , 113 L. | 3 | 3 |
Merrick v. Sutterlingreen2 sentences2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has “substantially limited the scope of parental immunity.” Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P.3d 497 (2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411, 413-15 , 610 P.2d 891 (1980). 2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has “substantially limited the scope of parental immunity.” Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P.3d 497 (2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411, 413-15 , 610 P.2d 891 (1980). | 2 | 5 |
Warren v. Warrengreen2 sentences2008See Warren, 336 Md. at 622 n.l (noting only eight states continue to apply the parental immunity doctrine in cases of motor vehicle torts). 2008See Warren, 336 Md. at 622 n. 1, 650 A.2d 252 (noting only eight states continue to apply the parental immunity doctrine in cases of motor vehicle torts). [5] The concurrence/dissents refers to the parental immunity doctrine's "weak rationale" to explain its unwillingness to extend protection to stepparents. | 2 | 2 |
Brunner v. Hutchinson Division, Lear-Siegler, Inc.green2 sentences2008See Brunner v. Hutchinson Div., Lear-Siegler, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 517, 525 (D.S.D. 1991) (parental privilege must be construed broadly enough to respect the sphere of parental discretion and avoid judicial second-guessing of parental judgment); Winn, 681 P.2d at 786 (permitting action by child based on negligent parental driving while recognizing an action will not lie where the defendant’s conduct was “either not tortious or privileged by virtue of the parental relationship”). ¶21 There now appears to be nearly universal consensus that children may sue their parents for personal injuries cause 2008See Brunner v. Hutchinson Div., 770 F.Supp. 517, 525 (D.S.D.1991) (parental privilege must be construed broadly enough to respect the sphere of parental discretion and avoid judicial second-guessing of parental judgment); Winn, 681 P.2d at 786 (permitting action by child based on negligent parental driving while recognizing an action will not lie where the defendant's conduct was "either not tortious or privileged by virtue of the parental relationship"). ¶ 21 There now appears to be nearly universal consensus that children may sue their parents for personal injuries caused by intentionally wr | 2 | 2 |
Rayburn v. Mooregreen2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984); Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis.2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App.Div.1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn.Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.App.1996); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App.3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4 at 1087. ¶ 34 Authority to the co | 2 | 2 |
Winn v. Gilroygreen2 sentences2008See Brunner v. Hutchinson Div., Lear-Siegler, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 517, 525 (D.S.D. 1991) (parental privilege must be construed broadly enough to respect the sphere of parental discretion and avoid judicial second-guessing of parental judgment); Winn, 681 P.2d at 786 (permitting action by child based on negligent parental driving while recognizing an action will not lie where the defendant’s conduct was “either not tortious or privileged by virtue of the parental relationship”). ¶21 There now appears to be nearly universal consensus that children may sue their parents for personal injuries cause 2008See Brunner v. Hutchinson Div., 770 F.Supp. 517, 525 (D.S.D.1991) (parental privilege must be construed broadly enough to respect the sphere of parental discretion and avoid judicial second-guessing of parental judgment); Winn, 681 P.2d at 786 (permitting action by child based on negligent parental driving while recognizing an action will not lie where the defendant's conduct was "either not tortious or privileged by virtue of the parental relationship"). ¶ 21 There now appears to be nearly universal consensus that children may sue their parents for personal injuries caused by intentionally wr | 2 | 2 |
C.M.L. Ex Rel. Brabant v. Republic Services, Inc.green2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984); Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis.2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App.Div.1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn.Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.App.1996); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App.3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4 at 1087. ¶ 34 Authority to the co | 2 | 2 |
DeLay v. DeLaygreen2 sentences2008That being the case, it is, in my view, unnecessary for us to resolve the question of whether Zellmer was in loco parentis to his stepchild. ¶53 The parental immunity doctrine, which we first recognized in Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905), has heretofore applied only to a birth or adoptive parent (hereinafter parent). 6 See Borst v. Borst, 41 Wn.2d 642, 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (1952); see also DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wn.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959). 2008That being the case, it is, in my view, unnecessary for us to resolve the question of whether Zellmer was in loco parentis to his stepchild. ¶53 The parental immunity doctrine, which we first recognized in Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905), has heretofore applied only to a birth or adoptive parent (hereinafter parent). 6 See Borst v. Borst, 41 Wn.2d 642, 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (1952); see also DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wn.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959). | 2 | 2 |
Zellmer v. Zellmergreen2 sentences2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has " substantially limited the scope of parental immunity." Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P. 3d 497 ( 2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411 , 413 -15, 610 P. 2d 891 ( 1980). " The primary purpose of the doctrine is to avoid the chilling effect tort liability would have on a parent's exercise of parental discipline and parental discretion." Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d at 162 . " In exercising that right, parents are in need of a ` 2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has “substantially limited the scope of parental immunity.” Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P.3d 497 (2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411, 413-15 , 610 P.2d 891 (1980). | 1 | 5 |
Borst v. Borstgreen2 sentences2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has " substantially limited the scope of parental immunity." Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P. 3d 497 ( 2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411 , 413 -15, 610 P. 2d 891 ( 1980). " The primary purpose of the doctrine is to avoid the chilling effect tort liability would have on a parent's exercise of parental discipline and parental discretion." Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d at 162 . " In exercising that right, parents are in need of a ` 2014Since its origination, the parental immunity doctrine has been subject to extensive critical commentary, and, like other jurisdictions, Washington has " substantially limited the scope of parental immunity." Zellmer v. Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d 147, 155 , 188 P. 3d 497 ( 2008); see also Merrick v. Sutterlin, 93 Wn.2d 411 , 413 -15, 610 P. 2d 891 ( 1980). " The primary purpose of the doctrine is to avoid the chilling effect tort liability would have on a parent's exercise of parental discipline and parental discretion." Zellmer, 164 Wn.2d at 162 . " In exercising that right, parents are in need of a ` | 1 | 4 |
Jenkins v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1green2 sentences2014No. 1, 105 Wn.2d 99, 105-06 , 713 P.2d 79 (1986). ¶8 The Supreme Court to date has avoided adopting a bright line rule for application of the parental immunity doctrine. 2014No. 1, 105 Wn.2d 99, 105-06 , 713 P.2d 79 (1986). ¶8 The Supreme Court to date has avoided adopting a bright line rule for application of the parental immunity doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
| Bennett v. Ruegggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Councilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Estate of Kerrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsecgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Machek v. City of Seattlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Masunaga v. Gapasingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gibson v. Gibsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Smith
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Hewlett v. George
red
2 sentences2008See, e.g., Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905) (father raped daughter); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903) (stepmother inflicted cruel and inhumane treatment on stepson); Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891) (mother falsely imprisoned child in insane asylum). 2008See, e.g., Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905) (father raped daughter); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903) (stepmother inflicted cruel and inhumane treatment on stepson); Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891) (mother falsely imprisoned child in insane asylum). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Lyles v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
McKelvey v. McKelvey
red
2 sentences2008See, e.g., Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905) (father raped daughter); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903) (stepmother inflicted cruel and inhumane treatment on stepson); Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891) (mother falsely imprisoned child in insane asylum). 2008See, e.g., Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242 , 79 P. 788 (1905) (father raped daughter); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903) (stepmother inflicted cruel and inhumane treatment on stepson); Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891) (mother falsely imprisoned child in insane asylum). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Livingston v. City of Everett
green
2 sentences2008App. 655, 660 , 751 P.2d 1199 (1988), we held that parental immunity did not apply to shield a parent when the parental conduct resulting in injury to a child was “willful and wanton.” ¶56 While I am not presently advocating that we overrule the Roller case in which we first adopted the doctrine of parental immunity, I heartily assert that we should decline to extend the doctrine to stepparents. 2008App. 655, 660 , 751 P.2d 1199 (1988), we held that parental immunity did not apply to shield a parent when the parental conduct resulting in injury to a child was “willful and wanton.” ¶56 While I am not presently advocating that we overrule the Roller case in which we first adopted the doctrine of parental immunity, I heartily assert that we should decline to extend the doctrine to stepparents. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
McManus v. Hinney
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Rousey v. Rousey
green
2 sentences2008Restatement, supra, § 895G (repudiation of general tort immunity does not create new liabilities for parents for conduct otherwise privileged or not tortious based on the parent/child relationship); Rousey v. Rousey, 528 A.2d 416 (D.C. 1987). ¶20 States that either abolished the parental immunity doctrine or declined to adopt it in the first instance none theless have followed the Restatement, disallowing negligent supervision claims based on the concept of a parental privilege. 2008RESTATEMENT, supra, § 895G (repudiation of general tort immunity does not create new liabilities for parents for conduct otherwise privileged or not tortious based on the parent/child relationship); Rousey v. Rousey, 528 A.2d 416 (D.C.App.1987). ¶ 20 States that either abolished the parental immunity doctrine or declined to adopt it in the first instance nonetheless have followed the Restatement, disallowing negligent supervision claims based on the concept of a parental privilege. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Bricault v. Deveau
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Burdick v. Nawrocki
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Zellmer v. Zellmer
neutral
2 sentences2008App. 674, 681 , 133 P.3d 948 (2006). 2008The trial court concluded Zellmer necessarily stood in loco parentis to Ashley by virtue of assuming the status of stepparent: "when there is a marriage ceremony and there is a blended family and someone becomes a stepparent that the doctrine of parental immunity applies, and there does not have to be a finding of in loco parentis." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 5, 2004) at 9. ¶ 13 On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized stepparents "do not earn the benefit of immunity simply by virtue of marriage to a legal parent." Zellmer v. Zellmer, 132 Wash.App. 674, 681 , 133 P.3d 948 (20 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Chhuth v. George
green
2 sentences2008As stated by the Court of Appeals, Division Three, “Since the underlying reasons for granting parental immunity are unaffected by the demise of a family member, the mere fact the cause of action is for wrongful death will not abrogate the parental immunity doctrine.” Chhuth v. George, 43 Wn. 2008App. 640, 647 , 719 P.2d 562 (1986) (denying contribution claim against parent for negligent supervision of child who was fatally injured while crossing the street). ¶32 Next, petitioners argue it would be inappropriate to extend the parental immunity doctrine to stepparents in view of the modern trend to limit or abolish it. ¶33 Notwithstanding the limitations courts have placed on the scope of conduct shielded by the parental immunity doctrine, a majority of states addressing the issue hold it applies to stepparents who stand in loco parentis to the same extent as to legal parents. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Gunn v. Rollings
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
McGee v. McGee
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984); Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis.2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App.Div.1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn.Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.App.1996); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App.3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4 at 1087. ¶ 34 Authority to the co | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Barry v. Schorling
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Rutkowski v. Wasko
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Zellmer v. Zellmer
neutral
2 sentences2008The trial court concluded Zellmer necessarily stood in loco parentis to Ashley by virtue of assuming the status of stepparent: “when there is a marriage ceremony and there is a blended family and someone becomes a stepparent... the doctrine of parental immunity applies, and there does not have to be a finding of in loco parentis.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 5, 2004) at 9. ¶13 On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized stepparents “do not earn the benefit of immunity simply by virtue of marriage to a legal parent.” Zellmer v. Zellmer, 132 Wn. 2008The trial court concluded Zellmer necessarily stood in loco parentis to Ashley by virtue of assuming the status of stepparent: "when there is a marriage ceremony and there is a blended family and someone becomes a stepparent that the doctrine of parental immunity applies, and there does not have to be a finding of in loco parentis." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 5, 2004) at 9. ¶ 13 On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized stepparents "do not earn the benefit of immunity simply by virtue of marriage to a legal parent." Zellmer v. Zellmer, 132 Wash.App. 674, 681 , 133 P.3d 948 (20 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Unah by and Through Unah v. Martin
green
2 sentences2008Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 ; Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis. 2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn. Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. App. 1997); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App. 3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4, at 1087. ¶34 Authority to the cont 2008Unah v. Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984); Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797 , 223 S.E.2d 873 (1976); McManus v. Hinney, 35 Wis.2d 433 , 151 N.W.2d 44 (1967); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302 , 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954); Rutkowski v. Wasko, 286 A.D. 327 , 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App.Div.1955); Bricault v. Deveau, 21 Conn.Supp. 486 , 157 A.2d 604 (1960); McGee v. McGee, 936 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.App.1996); Barry v. Schorling, 2 Ohio App.3d 110 , 440 N.E.2d 1216 (1981); see also Eclavea, supra, § 2[a], at 1071, § 4 at 1087. ¶ 34 Authority to the co | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| Hansen v. Friend green | 2 | 1998–1998 |
| Hoffman v. Tracy green | 2 | 1979–1986 |
| Strong v. Terrell green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Mason green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Taggart v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Scott v. Trans-System, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Scott v. Trans-System, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Reynolds v. Hicks green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Reynolds v. Hicks green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Ertman v. City of Olympia green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Norton v. Payne green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Eldredge v. Kamp Kachess Youth Services, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Cox v. Hugo green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Talarico v. Foremost Insurance Co. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Parks v. Parks green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Johnson v. Myers green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Brennecke Ex Rel. Brennecke v. Kilpatrick green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Thurman v. Etherton green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| cluster 272198 green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| The First National Bank And Trust Company Of Waynesboro, Pennsylvania v. Union Bank And Trust Company Of Mt. Holly, New Jersey neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Johnson v. Ottomeier green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Dean v. Smith green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Palcsey v. Tepper green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.