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.
16 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. Cingular Wirelessyellow2 sentences2011See Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wn.2d 843, 853 , 161 P.3d 1000 (2007); Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (“The purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” (citing Jeffrey M. 2011See Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wn.2d 843, 853 , 161 P.3d 1000 (2007); Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (“The purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” (citing Jeffrey M. | 3 | 3 |
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurancegreen2 sentences2024“The purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 . 2020This is consistent with the foundational case, Hangman Ridge, where we observed that “[t]he purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” 105 Wn.2d at 785 (citing Jeffrey M. | 1 | 14 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Short v. Demopolis
green
2 sentences2020Koontz, Washington Lawyers under the Purview of the State Consumer Protection Act—The “Entrepreneurial Aspects” Solution— Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn. 2d 52 , 691 P.2d 163 (1984), 60 WASH. 2020Koontz, Washington Lawyers under the Purview of the State Consumer Protection Act—The “Entrepreneurial Aspects” Solution— Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn. 2d 52 , 691 P.2d 163 (1984), 60 WASH. | 4 | 2007–2020 |
Robinson v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The “knowing failure to reveal something of material importance is ‘deceptive’ within the CPA.” Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 75 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007) (quoting Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. App. 104, 116 , 22 P.3d 818 (2001)). 2019The “knowing failure to reveal something of material importance is ‘deceptive’ within the CPA.” Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 75 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007) (quoting Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. App. 104, 116 , 22 P.3d 818 (2001)). | 3 | 2007–2019 |
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Sing, 134 Wn.2d at 30 . “ ‘[K] nowing failure to reveal something of material importance is “deceptive” within the [meaning of the] CPA.’ ” Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 75 (quoting Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. 2000Sing, 134 Wn.2d at 30 (citing Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 ). | 3 | 2000–2012 |
INDOOR BILLBOARD WASHINGTON, INC. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The “knowing failure to reveal something of material importance is ‘deceptive’ within the CPA.” Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 75 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007) (quoting Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. App. 104, 116 , 22 P.3d 818 (2001)). 2019The “knowing failure to reveal something of material importance is ‘deceptive’ within the CPA.” Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 75 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007) (quoting Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wn. App. 104, 116 , 22 P.3d 818 (2001)). | 2 | 2012–2019 |
Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.
green
2 sentences2018Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150 , 930 P.2d 288 (1997). 10 No.75747-4-1/11 a substantial portion of the public, or (iii) an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of the public interest."29 Deception exists where there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.3° Neither intent nor actual deception is required to prove a deceptive act or practice, the focus is whether the conduct "has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public."31 But in applying the capacity to deceive requirement, our conc 2018Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150 , 930 P.2d 288 (1997). 10 No.75747-4-1/11 a substantial portion of the public, or (iii) an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of the public interest."29 Deception exists where there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.3° Neither intent nor actual deception is required to prove a deceptive act or practice, the focus is whether the conduct "has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public."31 But in applying the capacity to deceive requirement, our conc | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington
green
2 sentences2012Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 50 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (collection notices had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public because language could induce people to remand payment in the mistaken belief they had a legal obligation to do so). ¶25 “The purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 . 2012Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 50 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (collection notices had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public because language could induce people to remand payment in the mistaken belief they had a legal obligation to do so). ¶25 “The purpose of the capacity-to-deceive test is to deter deceptive conduct before injury occurs.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.