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.
15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Asarco, Inc. v. Department of Ecologygreen2 sentences2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 145 Wn.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam’r, 129 Wn.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). 2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 145 Wash.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam'r, 129 Wash.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). [6] L & I argues that its conduct, serving of a no trespass notice, was not unreasonably dangerous to Segaline. | 2 | 2 |
First United Methodist v. Hearing Examinergreen2 sentences2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 145 Wn.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam’r, 129 Wn.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). 2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 145 Wash.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam'r, 129 Wash.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). [6] L & I argues that its conduct, serving of a no trespass notice, was not unreasonably dangerous to Segaline. | 2 | 2 |
First United Methodist Church v. Hearing Examiner for the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Boardgreen2 sentences2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 145 Wn.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam’r, 129 Wn.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). 2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 145 Wash.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam'r, 129 Wash.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). [6] L & I argues that its conduct, serving of a no trespass notice, was not unreasonably dangerous to Segaline. | 2 | 2 |
Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecologygreen2 sentences2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 145 Wn.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam’r, 129 Wn.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). 2008See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 145 Wash.2d 750, 760 , 43 P.3d 471 (2002) (ruling that appellate courts do not generally rule on issues for which there is no real and live controversy) (quoting First United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam'r, 129 Wash.2d 238, 245 , 916 P.2d 374 (1996)). [6] L & I argues that its conduct, serving of a no trespass notice, was not unreasonably dangerous to Segaline. | 2 | 2 |
Petrich v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2004Gem Trading, 92 Wn.2d at 963-64; see also Petrich v. McDonald, 44 Wn.2d 211, 216-22 , 266 P.2d 1047 (1954). 2004Gem Trading, 92 Wn.2d at 963-64; see also Petrich v. McDonald, 44 Wn.2d 211, 216-22 , 266 P.2d 1047 (1954). | 2 | 2 |
Bender v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 1 | 6 |
Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp.green2 sentences2004Gem Trading, 92 Wn.2d at 963-64; see also Petrich v. McDonald, 44 Wn.2d 211, 216-22 , 266 P.2d 1047 (1954). 2004Gem Trading, 92 Wash.2d at 963-64 , 603 P.2d 828 ; see also Petrich v. McDonald, 44 Wash.2d 211, 216-22 , 266 P.2d 1047 (1954). | 1 | 2 |
Hanson v. Estellgreen2 sentences2002The issue, according to the court's holding, was whether a malicious prosecution claim can be based "on an invalid factual allegation made in support of a cause of action that is otherwise supported by probable cause." Brin, 89 Wash.App. at 821 , 951 P.2d 291 . [43] Hanson, 100 Wash.App. at 286 , 997 P.2d 426 ("The Legislature abrogated the fourth [termination] element by permitting a defendant to assert a counterclaim for malicious prosecution under RCW 4.24.350"). 2002App. at 821 . 100 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Falkner v. Foshauggreen1 sentence2002See RCW 9.94A.753(9). [10] But see Falkner v. Foshaug, 108 Wash.App. 113 , 29 P.3d 771 (2001) (following successful appeal, criminal defendant not precluded from suing his defense attorney for malpractice after entering Alford plea to lesser charge.) [11] Relying on cases from Division One, Baines asserts that an Alford plea does not collaterally estop a defendant from asserting a malicious prosecution claim brought by the victim of the crime of which he was convicted. | 1 | 1 |
Falkner v. Foshauggreen1 sentence2002See RCW 9.94A.753(9). [10] But see Falkner v. Foshaug, 108 Wash.App. 113 , 29 P.3d 771 (2001) (following successful appeal, criminal defendant not precluded from suing his defense attorney for malpractice after entering Alford plea to lesser charge.) [11] Relying on cases from Division One, Baines asserts that an Alford plea does not collaterally estop a defendant from asserting a malicious prosecution claim brought by the victim of the crime of which he was convicted. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Monticello State Bank of Monticellogreen1 sentence1998Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal. 2d 375 , 295 P.2d 405, 407-08 (1956) (allowing a malicious prosecution suit to proceed even though a final judgment had not been secured on a related but severable claim); Tabaz v. Cal Fed Fin., 27 Cal. App. 4th 789 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 137 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may base a malicious prosecution claim on individual claims if the other claims are severable and not “simply different theories for recovering on the same injury”); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984) (“[I]n those instances in which a plaintiff in a malicious litigat | 1 | 1 |
Albertson v. Raboffgreen2 sentences1998Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal. 2d 375 , 295 P.2d 405, 407-08 (1956) (allowing a malicious prosecution suit to proceed even though a final judgment had not been secured on a related but severable claim); Tabaz v. Cal Fed Fin., 27 Cal. App. 4th 789 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 137 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may base a malicious prosecution claim on individual claims if the other claims are severable and not “simply different theories for recovering on the same injury”); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984) (“[I]n those instances in which a plaintiff in a malicious litigat 1998Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal. 2d 375 , 295 P.2d 405, 407-08 (1956) (allowing a malicious prosecution suit to proceed even though a final judgment had not been secured on a related but severable claim); Tabaz v. Cal Fed Fin., 27 Cal. App. 4th 789 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 137 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may base a malicious prosecution claim on individual claims if the other claims are severable and not “simply different theories for recovering on the same injury”); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984) (“[I]n those instances in which a plaintiff in a malicious litigat | 1 | 1 |
Tabaz v. Cal Fed Financegreen2 sentences1998Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal. 2d 375 , 295 P.2d 405, 407-08 (1956) (allowing a malicious prosecution suit to proceed even though a final judgment had not been secured on a related but severable claim); Tabaz v. Cal Fed Fin., 27 Cal. App. 4th 789 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 137 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may base a malicious prosecution claim on individual claims if the other claims are severable and not “simply different theories for recovering on the same injury”); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984) (“[I]n those instances in which a plaintiff in a malicious litigat 1998Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal. 2d 375 , 295 P.2d 405, 407-08 (1956) (allowing a malicious prosecution suit to proceed even though a final judgment had not been secured on a related but severable claim); Tabaz v. Cal Fed Fin., 27 Cal. App. 4th 789 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 137 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may base a malicious prosecution claim on individual claims if the other claims are severable and not “simply different theories for recovering on the same injury”); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984) (“[I]n those instances in which a plaintiff in a malicious litigat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.
green
2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 4 | 2004–2018 |
Hanson v. City of Snohomish
green
2 sentences2014Hanson v. City ofSnohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 558 , 852 P. 2d 295 ( 1993). 2014Hanson v. City ofSnohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 558 , 852 P. 2d 295 ( 1993). | 4 | 1998–2014 |
Turngren v. King County
green
2 sentences2014Tumgren involved a civil action for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, libel, and slander.96 For the malicious prosecution claim, the court looked at misstatements and omissions in the affidavit in support of the search warrant.97 The court noted that the affidavit made it seem like an informant voluntarily gave law enforcement information.98 When "[i]n actuality, the informant's statements, given in response to police questioning about his own criminal activity, could be construed as an effort to exculpate himself and turn police interest away from his own crimes."99 2014Tumgren involved a civil action for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, libel, and slander.96 For the malicious prosecution claim, the court looked at misstatements and omissions in the affidavit in support of the search warrant.97 The court noted that the affidavit made it seem like an informant voluntarily gave law enforcement information.98 When "[i]n actuality, the informant's statements, given in response to police questioning about his own criminal activity, could be construed as an effort to exculpate himself and turn police interest away from his own crimes."99 | 2 | 1990–2014 |
Banks v. Nordstrom, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Hanson, 121 Wn.2d at 558 (quoting Peasley, 13 Wn.2d at 497 ); Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wn.2d 582, 593 , 664 P.2d 492 (1983); Banks v. Nordstrom, Inc., 57 Wn. 2004Hanson, 121 Wash.2d at 558 , 852 P.2d 295 (quoting Peasley, 13 Wash.2d at 497 , 125 P.2d 681 ); Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 593 , 664 P.2d 492 (1983); Banks v. Nordstrom, Inc., 57 Wash.App. 251, 255-56 , 787 P.2d 953 (1990). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Brin v. Stutzman
green
2 sentences2002The issue, according to the court's holding, was whether a malicious prosecution claim can be based "on an invalid factual allegation made in support of a cause of action that is otherwise supported by probable cause." Brin, 89 Wash.App. at 821 , 951 P.2d 291 . [43] Hanson, 100 Wash.App. at 286 , 997 P.2d 426 ("The Legislature abrogated the fourth [termination] element by permitting a defendant to assert a counterclaim for malicious prosecution under RCW 4.24.350"). 2002The issue, according to the court’s holding, was whether a malicious prosecution claim can be based “on an invalid factual allegation made in support of a cause of action that is otherwise supported by probable cause.” Brin, 89 Wn. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Orwick v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 1 | 2018–2018 |
ETCO, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Stockwell
green
2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Davis v. Cox
green
2 sentences2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & 2018Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash.2d 588 , 600, 316 P.3d 1007 (2014) (quoting ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 66 Wash. App. 302 , 307, 831 P.2d 1133 (1992) ). 14 "Malice," for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, " ' [ " ] may be satisfied by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. [ " ] ' " Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249 , 257, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 594, 664 P.2d 492 (1983) (quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
1 sentence2017Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 176 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. McGrath
green
1 sentence2002However, Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. McGrath, 42 Wn. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hanson v. Estell
green
1 sentence2002The issue, according to the court's holding, was whether a malicious prosecution claim can be based "on an invalid factual allegation made in support of a cause of action that is otherwise supported by probable cause." Brin, 89 Wash.App. at 821 , 951 P.2d 291 . [43] Hanson, 100 Wash.App. at 286 , 997 P.2d 426 ("The Legislature abrogated the fourth [termination] element by permitting a defendant to assert a counterclaim for malicious prosecution under RCW 4.24.350"). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Third, Washington courts have “strictly limited the right to bring suit for malicious prosecution of civil actions, reasoning that such suits intimidate prospective litigants and that the public policy favors open courts in which a plaintiff may fearlessly present his case.” Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 22 Wn. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Fenner v. Lindsay
neutral
1 sentence1998Although this court has held that RCW 4.24.350 abrogated “the common law requirement of showing prior abandonment by the plaintiff, or termination in favor of the defendant” to assert a malicious prosecution claim, Fenner, 28 Wn. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Jacques v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1998Hanson, 121 Wn.2d at 558 ; Jacques v. Sharp, 83 Wn. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.