17 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Santosgreen2 sentences1997See Santos, 104 Wn.2d at 146-50 . 1997See Santos, 104 Wash.2d at 146-50 , 702 P.2d 1179 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Garzagreen2 sentences2014It "must be the overarching principle throughout the inquiry." Id. at 368 . 2014It “must be the overarching principle throughout the inquiry.” Id. at 368 . ¶16 Garza also determined that the trial court’s waiver determination is a factual issue to which the abuse of discretion standard applies on review. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Landry
green
2 sentences2019E.g., In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809 , 699 P.2d 214 (1985). 2019E.g., In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809 , 699 P.2d 214 (1985). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Osborn v. Mason County
green
2 sentences2010Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 163 , 759 P.2d 447 ; Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 27-28 , 134 P.3d 197 . ¶ 24 Over time, our courts have identified four exceptions to the public duty doctrinelegislative intent, failure to enforce, rescue, and special relationship. 2010Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 163 ; Osborn, 157 Wn.2d at 27-28 . ¶24 Over time, our courts have identified four “exceptions” to the public duty doctrine — legislative intent, failure to enforce, rescue, and special relationship. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Alejandre v. Bull
green
2 sentences2010The overarching rule in Alejandre guides us here: Parties should be limited to contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates contract and tort relief. 159 Wash.2d at 681 , 153 P.3d 864 . 2010The overarching rule in Alejandre guides us here: Parties should be limited to contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates contract and tort relief. 159 Wn.2d at 681 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Taylor v. Stevens County
green
2 sentences2010Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 163 , 759 P.2d 447 ; Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 27-28 , 134 P.3d 197 . ¶ 24 Over time, our courts have identified four exceptions to the public duty doctrinelegislative intent, failure to enforce, rescue, and special relationship. 2010Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 163 , 759 P.2d 447 ; Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 27-28 , 134 P.3d 197 . ¶ 24 Over time, our courts have identified four exceptions to the public duty doctrinelegislative intent, failure to enforce, rescue, and special relationship. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Berschauer/Phillips Construction Co. v. Seattle School District No. 1
green
2 sentences2010LTK Consulting relies heavily on one of these cases, Berschauer/Phillips, 124 Wash.2d at 822 , 881 P.2d 986 , but Berschauer/Phillips does not support its argument that the economic loss rule applies here. 2010LTK Consulting relies heavily on one of these cases, Berschauer/Phillips, 124 Wash.2d at 822 , 881 P.2d 986 , but Berschauer/Phillips does not support its argument that the economic loss rule applies here. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Sheldon v. Fettig
green
2 sentences1998Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wn.2d 601, 609 , 919 P.2d 1209 (1996). 1998Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wash.2d 601, 609 , 919 P.2d 1209 (1996). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Sheldon v. Fettig
green
2 sentences1998Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wn.2d 601, 609 , 919 P.2d 1209 (1996). 1998Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wash.2d 601, 609 , 919 P.2d 1209 (1996). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
R.B. v. C.W.
green
2 sentences2025In re Adoption of T.A.W., 186 Wn.2d 828, 840 , 383 P.3d 492 (2016); Abbess, 23 Wn. 2025In re Adoption of T.A.W., 186 Wn.2d 828, 840 , 383 P.3d 492 (2016); Abbess, 23 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brown v. Voss
green
2 sentences2016App. 774, 779 , 217 P.3d 787 (2009) (citing Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366, 371 , 715 P.2d 514 (1986)). 2016App. 774, 779 , 217 P.3d 787 (2009) (citing Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366, 371 , 715 P.2d 514 (1986)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Snyder v. Haynes
green
1 sentence2016App. 774, 779 , 217 P.3d 787 (2009) (citing Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366, 371 , 715 P.2d 514 (1986)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Snyder v. Haynes
green
1 sentence2016Although the grant language used in the easements before us is awkward and imprecise, we must be guided by the overarching rule for construing easements: “Courts interpret easement grants to give effect to the parties’ original intent.” Snyder v. Haynes, 152 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013While the provision's language in Boguch may have been narrower, this difference in 133 170 Wn.2d 380 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)). 134 JcL 135 Jd at 401-02. 136 Jd 38 No. 68127-3-1 (Consolidated with No. 68522-8-l)/39 language does not negate the overarching rule.137 Aparty does not bring an action "on the contract" if the duty is "imposed by an external source, such as a statute or the common law."138 Thus, this argument is not helpful. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013While the provision's language in Boguch may have been narrower, this difference in 133 170 Wn.2d 380 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)). 134 JcL 135 Jd at 401-02. 136 Jd 38 No. 68127-3-1 (Consolidated with No. 68522-8-l)/39 language does not negate the overarching rule.137 Aparty does not bring an action "on the contract" if the duty is "imposed by an external source, such as a statute or the common law."138 Thus, this argument is not helpful. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Alejandre v. Bull
green
1 sentence2010The overarching rule in Alejandre guides us here: Parties should be limited to contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates contract and tort relief. 159 Wash.2d at 681 , 153 P.3d 864 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Osborn v. Mason County
green
1 sentence2010Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 163 , 759 P.2d 447 ; Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 27-28 , 134 P.3d 197 . ¶ 24 Over time, our courts have identified four exceptions to the public duty doctrinelegislative intent, failure to enforce, rescue, and special relationship. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.