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.
19 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Biggs v. Vailgreen2 sentences2026“The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was filed for an improper purpose.” Biggs, 124 Wn.2d at 201 . 2024“The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was filed for an improper purpose.” Biggs, 124 Wn.2d at 201 . | 4 | 19 |
Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc.green2 sentences2010CR 11 permits a trial court to impose sanctions against a litigant for filing claims not well grounded in fact or law or for filings made for an improper purpose: CR 11 addresses two types of problems relating to pleadings, motions and legal memoranda: filings which are not "well grounded in fact and ... warranted by ... law" and filings interposed for "any improper purpose." Bryant, 119 Wash.2d at 217 , 829 P.2d 1099 (emphasis added) (alterations in original); see also Biggs II, 124 Wash.2d at 201 , 876 P.2d 448 ("[I]n imposing CR 11 sanctions,... [t]he court must make a finding that either t 2010CR 11 permits a trial court to impose sanctions against a litigant for filing claims not well grounded in fact or law or for filings made for an improper purpose: CR 11 addresses two types of problems relating to pleadings, motions and legal memoranda: filings which are not "well grounded in fact and ... warranted by ... law" and filings interposed for "any improper purpose." Bryant, 119 Wash.2d at 217 , 829 P.2d 1099 (emphasis added) (alterations in original); see also Biggs II, 124 Wash.2d at 201 , 876 P.2d 448 ("[I]n imposing CR 11 sanctions,... [t]he court must make a finding that either t | 1 | 5 |
Dexter v. Spokane County Health Districtgreen2 sentences2020The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was filed for an improper purpose.” 124 Wn.2d 193, 201 , 876 P.2d 448 (1994) (emphasis omitted); see accord Dexter v. Spokane County Health Dist., 76 Wn. 2020App. 372, 377 , 884 P.2d 1353 (1994) (“If an appellate panel cannot ascertain what reasons prompted a trial court’s ruling, it is impossible to determine whether the ruling is based on tenable grounds or is manifestly unreasonable.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Verharen
green
2 sentences2026Quick-Ruben v. Verharen, 136 Wn.2d 888, 904 , 969 P.2d 64 (1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 201 , 876 P.2d 448 (1994)). 2025Quick Ruben v. Verharen, 136 Wn.2d 888, 904 , 969 P.2d 64 (1998) (quoting Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 201 , 876 P.2d 448 (1994)). | 3 | 2024–2026 |
State Ex Rel. Quick-Ruben v. Verharen
green
2 sentences2026Quick-Ruben v. Verharen, 136 Wn.2d 888, 904 , 969 P.2d 64 (1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 201 , 876 P.2d 448 (1994)). 2025Quick Ruben v. Verharen, 136 Wn.2d 888, 904 , 969 P.2d 64 (1998) (quoting Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 201 , 876 P.2d 448 (1994)). | 3 | 2024–2026 |
Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wash.2d 677, 684 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006). 2010Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 684 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wash.2d 677, 684 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006). 2010Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 684 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz
green
1 sentence2021App. 2d 843, 856 , 456 P.3d 869 (citing State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258 , 893 P.2d 615 (1995)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 9 No. 80293-3-I/10 existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”[29] “The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences2021App. 2d 843, 856 , 456 P.3d 869 (citing State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258 , 893 P.2d 615 (1995)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 9 No. 80293-3-I/10 existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”[29] “The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was 2021App. 2d 843, 856 , 456 P.3d 869 (citing State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258 , 893 P.2d 615 (1995)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 9 No. 80293-3-I/10 existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”[29] “The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.