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.
18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eggergreen2 sentences2006See Standards std. 4.64 (“Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to the client.”). 14 However, in doing so, we remain mindful that we have previously stated that the presumptive sanctions set forth in Standards generally “makes it clear that suspension is the appropriate sanction where an attorney acted with knowledge.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Egger, 152 Wn.2d 393, 416 , 98 P.3d 477 (2004); see also Stand 2006See STANDARDS std. 4.64 ("Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to the client."). [14] However, in doing so, we remain *967 mindful that we have previously stated that the presumptive sanctions set forth in Standards generally "makes it clear that suspension is the appropriate sanction where an attorney acted with knowledge." In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Egger, 152 Wash.2d 393, 416 , 98 P.3d 477 (2004); see a | 2 | 2 |
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eggergreen2 sentences2006See Standards std. 4.64 (“Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to the client.”). 14 However, in doing so, we remain mindful that we have previously stated that the presumptive sanctions set forth in Standards generally “makes it clear that suspension is the appropriate sanction where an attorney acted with knowledge.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Egger, 152 Wn.2d 393, 416 , 98 P.3d 477 (2004); see also Stand 2006See STANDARDS std. 4.64 ("Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to the client."). [14] However, in doing so, we remain *967 mindful that we have previously stated that the presumptive sanctions set forth in Standards generally "makes it clear that suspension is the appropriate sanction where an attorney acted with knowledge." In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Egger, 152 Wash.2d 393, 416 , 98 P.3d 477 (2004); see a | 2 | 2 |
Siekawitch v. Washington Beef Producers, Inc.green2 sentences2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). 2001See, id. at 202-04 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Shermer v. Bakergreen2 sentences2019See id. at 857-58 . 2017And the supreme court has subsequently denied review in cases from this court that have held reasonable reliance an essential element of RCW 21.20.010 claims.25 As we stated in 24 Wade, 915 F.2d at 1332 . 25 Shermer v. Baker, 2 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Bulman v. Safeway, Inc.green2 sentences2001It found that "[t]hese cases reveal no clear line of analysis as to the reliance requirement of *1176 Thompson . " 96 Wash.App. at 204 , 978 P.2d 568 . 2001It found that “[t]hese cases reveal no clear line of analysis as to the reliance requirement of Thompson.” 96 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Hines v. Data Line Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2019See id. 14 Federal Home Loan v. Credit Suisse, No. 95420-8 Federal Home Loan v. Barclays, No. 95436-4 We reaffirmed that Hines did not create a reliance requirement in subsequent cases. 2019In Go2Net, we repeated that "[s]imply put, a seller's 'violation [of the Securities Act] is in the misrepresentation itself.'" 158 Wn.2d at 253 (quoting Hines, 114 Wn.2d at 135 ). | 1 | 1 |
Yoder v. Honeywell Inc.green1 sentence2017See Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 900 F. Supp. 240, 245 (D. | 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. Sublett
green
2 sentences2015State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 72-73 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (plurality opinion). 2015State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 72-73 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.
green
2 sentences2007But Schmidt's description is compatible with the definition of "`proximate cause'" in WPI 15.01 because it effectively concluded that, but for the defendant's inflated appraisal, the plaintiffs would not have made the investment. ¶ 55 Fisons involved a physician who brought a claim against a drug company alleging that the drug company had engaged in unfair or deceptive act or practices by failing to warn the physician of the dangers related to a drug he prescribed to his patients. 122 Wash.2d at 311 , 858 P.2d 1054 . 2007But Schmidt’s description is compatible with the definition of “ ‘proximate cause’ ” in WPI 15.01 because it effectively concluded that, but for the defendant’s inflated appraisal, the plaintiffs would not have made the investment. ¶55 Fisons involved a physician who brought a claim against a drug company alleging that the drug company had engaged in unfair or deceptive act or practices by failing to warn the physician of the dangers related to a drug he prescribed to his patients. 122 Wn.2d at 311 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007However, Robinson involved a failure to disclose, not an affirmative misrepresentation, so it does not support Integra's argument. 106 Wash.App. at 119 , 22 P.3d 818 . ¶ 51 WSTLA and the AG suggest that Hangman Ridge replaced the reliance/inducement requirement with a proximate cause standard. 2007However, Robinson involved a failure to disclose, not an affirmative misrepresentation, so it does not support Integra’s argument. 106 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. McNeal
green
1 sentence2026App. 777, 786-7 , 175 P.3d 1139 (2008) (holding that case ceased to be final upon vacation of a sentence and remand for resentencing). 11 No. 39242-2-III State v. Tellvik However, at Tellvik’s second resentencing hearing, the trial court noted a reliance on its analysis from the original resentencing hearing. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cavell v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2025However, the trial court’s findings about Hothi’s motives were relevant to whether he was acting in bad faith, as Cavell shows, and bad faith is relevant to the trial court’s conclusion that Sapphire breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 29 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. City of Marysville
green
1 sentence2020Cedar Grove, 188 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 , 128 S. Ct. 761 , 169 L. 2019Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 , 128 S. Ct. 761 , 169 L. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Margaret Rublee, Et Ano. v. Carrier Corp.
green
2 sentences2018For this reason, we reject the actual reliance test, which requires proof that the purchaser or user " 'actually and reasonably relied upon the reputed "apparent manufacturer's" trademark, reputation, or assurances of product quality, in purchasing the defective product at issue.' " Rublee , 199 Wash. App. at 377 , 398 P.3d 1247 (quoting Stein , 228 Md. 2018For this reason, we reject the actual reliance test, which requires proof that the purchaser or user " 'actually and reasonably relied upon the reputed "apparent manufacturer's" trademark, reputation, or assurances of product quality, in purchasing the defective product at issue.' " Rublee , 199 Wash. App. at 377 , 398 P.3d 1247 (quoting Stein , 228 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stein v. Pfizer Inc.
green
2 sentences2018For this reason, we reject the actual reliance test, which requires proof that the purchaser or user " 'actually and reasonably relied upon the reputed "apparent manufacturer's" trademark, reputation, or assurances of product quality, in purchasing the defective product at issue.' " Rublee , 199 Wash. App. at 377 , 398 P.3d 1247 (quoting Stein , 228 Md. 2018App. at 102 , 137 A.3d 279 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Curtis K. Wade Joan Vertlieb Sharon Svare Robert Svare John Starkovick Johanna Starkovick Richard Stainslaw Roger-Olympic Corp. v. Skipper's, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017And the supreme court has subsequently denied review in cases from this court that have held reasonable reliance an essential element of RCW 21.20.010 claims.25 As we stated in 24 Wade, 915 F.2d at 1332 . 25 Shermer v. Baker, 2 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Clausing v. DeHart
green
2 sentences2017It is particularly noteworthy that since Washington courts began recognizing a reliance requirement in 1970,20 the legislature has amended the 15 Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wn.2d 70, 72 , 515 P.2d 982 (1973). 2017It is particularly noteworthy that since Washington courts began recognizing a reliance requirement in 1970,20 the legislature has amended the 15 Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wn.2d 70, 72 , 515 P.2d 982 (1973). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Guarino v. Interactive Objects, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Guarino v. Interactive Obiects, Inc., 122 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Robinson v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007However, Robinson involved a failure to disclose, not an affirmative misrepresentation, so it does not support Integra's argument. 106 Wash.App. at 119 , 22 P.3d 818 . ¶ 51 WSTLA and the AG suggest that Hangman Ridge replaced the reliance/inducement requirement with a proximate cause standard. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp.
green
1 sentence2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bott v. Rockwell International
green
1 sentence2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). 2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shaw v. Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). 2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp.
green
1 sentence2001See id. at 202-04, 978 P.2d 568 (discussing Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 454 , 793 P.2d 994 (1990); Klontz v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 90 Wash. App. 186 , 951 P.2d 280 (1998); Shaw v. Housing Auth. of Walla Walla, 75 Wash. App. 755 , 880 P.2d 1006 (1994); Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326 , 908 P.2d 909 (1996); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 81 Wash.App. 163 , 914 P.2d 102 (1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Strauss
green
1 sentence1999Strauss, 119 Wn.2d at 421 ; Strauss, slip op. at 2. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Dictado
green
2 sentences1986Our Supreme Court has not yet answered the question of whether rough notes are discoverable as of right, State v. Dictado, 102 Wn.2d 277, 298 , 687 P.2d 172 (1984), but we need not reach that issue here. 1986Our Supreme Court has not yet answered the question of whether rough notes are discoverable as of right, State v. Dictado, 102 Wn.2d 277, 298 , 687 P.2d 172 (1984), but we need not reach that issue here. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.