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 2009–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PSgreen2 sentences2025Fifth, Buchanan points out that the Supreme Court overturned the certificate of merit requirement in former RCW 7.70.150 (2006) as unconstitutional in Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974, 984-85 , 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 2022Former RCW 7.70.150 (2006) required plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions to file a certificate of merit with their pleadings that 31 Reyes, 191 Wn.2d at 86 (first alteration in original) (quoting RCW 7.70.040(1)). 32 CP at 73. 33 Id. 34 CP at 142. 35 166 Wn.2d 974 , 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 9 No. 82780-4-I/10 contained a statement from an expert supporting the plaintiff’s claim that there was a reasonable probability that the defendant’s conduct violated the standard of care.36 But the certificate of merit requirement in former RCW 7.70.150 is distinct from the requirement that on summary jud | 1 | 12 |
Marbury v. Madisongreen2 sentences2014One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L. 2014One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L. | 1 | 2 |
Christensen v. Ellsworthgreen2 sentences2009NOTES [1] Because we find that the certificate of merit requirement unduly burdens the right of access to courts and violates the separation of powers, we do not reach Putman's arguments that the certificate of merit requirement (1) violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington State Constitution and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, (2) violates the prohibition on special laws in the Washington State Constitution, and (3) violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. [2] See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash.2d 365 , 173 P.3 2009See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365 , 173 P.3d 228 (2007) (unlawful detainer actions); Zesbaugh, Inc. v. Gen. | 1 | 2 |
Christensen v. Ellsworthgreen2 sentences2009NOTES [1] Because we find that the certificate of merit requirement unduly burdens the right of access to courts and violates the separation of powers, we do not reach Putman's arguments that the certificate of merit requirement (1) violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington State Constitution and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, (2) violates the prohibition on special laws in the Washington State Constitution, and (3) violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. [2] See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash.2d 365 , 173 P.3 2009See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365 , 173 P.3d 228 (2007) (unlawful detainer actions); Zesbaugh, Inc. v. Gen. | 1 | 2 |
Waples v. Yigreen1 sentence2014Putman held that the certificate of merit requirement unduly impaired the right of access to the courts because it required parties to present evidence that might be impossible to develop without discovery.23 The court held that the requirement to file a certificate of merit violated the separation of powers doctrine because it conflicted with CR 8 and 11 regarding pleading requirements and thereby encroached on the judiciary's power to establish court rules.24 The court stated: 21 117Wn.2d 772, 819 P.2d 370 (1991). 22 166Wn.2d 974, 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 23 Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 977-78; see ajso | 1 | 1 |
Waples v. Yigreen1 sentence2014Putman held that the certificate of merit requirement unduly impaired the right of access to the courts because it required parties to present evidence that might be impossible to develop without discovery.23 The court held that the requirement to file a certificate of merit violated the separation of powers doctrine because it conflicted with CR 8 and 11 regarding pleading requirements and thereby encroached on the judiciary's power to establish court rules.24 The court stated: 21 117Wn.2d 772, 819 P.2d 370 (1991). 22 166Wn.2d 974, 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 23 Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 977-78; see ajso | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center
green
2 sentences2025Fifth, Buchanan points out that the Supreme Court overturned the certificate of merit requirement in former RCW 7.70.150 (2006) as unconstitutional in Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974, 984-85 , 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 2022Former RCW 7.70.150 (2006) required plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions to file a certificate of merit with their pleadings that 31 Reyes, 191 Wn.2d at 86 (first alteration in original) (quoting RCW 7.70.040(1)). 32 CP at 73. 33 Id. 34 CP at 142. 35 166 Wn.2d 974 , 216 P.3d 374 (2009). 9 No. 82780-4-I/10 contained a statement from an expert supporting the plaintiff’s claim that there was a reasonable probability that the defendant’s conduct violated the standard of care.36 But the certificate of merit requirement in former RCW 7.70.150 is distinct from the requirement that on summary jud | 9 | 2009–2025 |
John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Center
green
2 sentences2014Noting that the “right of access to courts ‘includes the right of discovery authorized by the civil rules,’ ” Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 979 (quoting John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991)), the court held that the certificate of merit requirement unconstitutionally limited a litigant’s access to the courts. 2014Noting that the “right of access to courts ‘includes the right of discovery authorized by the civil rules,’ ” Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 979 (quoting John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991)), the court held that the certificate of merit requirement unconstitutionally limited a litigant’s access to the courts. | 4 | 2012–2014 |
Fitzgerald v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Fitzgerald, 172 Wn. 2014Fitzgerald. 172 Wn. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Matter of Detention of Aguilar
green
2 sentences2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. 2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cleveland v. Duke
green
1 sentence2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Estate of Kordon
green
1 sentence2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Zesbaugh, Inc. v. General Steel Fabricating, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. 2009Steel Fabricating, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 600 , 627 P.2d 1321 (1981) (garnishments); In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wash.2d 206 , 137 P.3d 16 (2006) (will contests); In re Det. of Aguilar, 77 Wash.App. 596 , 892 P.2d 1091 (1995) (sexually violent predator petitions); Pac. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.