14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNarygreen2 sentences2017Under the comity principle, courts "will stay their hand when remedies at law are plain, adequate, and complete." Fair Assessment, 454 U.S. at 108 . 2017However, as with the comity principle, the ESA restrains interference 18In Fair Assessment, the district court concluded that the remedy was adequate and the plaintiffs did not appeal that finding. 454 U.S. at 116 . | 1 | 2 |
Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomezgreen1 sentence2017While the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that these inquiries are identical, it has "suggested that adequacy of the state system for comity purposes is the same standard as 'plain, speedy and efficient' under the TIA." Wal-Mart P.R., Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez, 834 F.3d 110, 125 (1st Cir. 2016). -17- --- ------WasHington Trucking Ass 'ns, et al. v-:EmjiTSec.7Teji't, et al., 93079-1 - --- - - - ---- - - - Although the Supreme Court once stated that "Congress did not equate [the TIA's] 'plain, speedy and efficient' with equity's 'plain, adequate and complete,"' Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 526 , l | 1 | 1 |
Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bankgreen2 sentences2017While the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that these inquiries are identical, it has "suggested that adequacy of the state system for comity purposes is the same standard as 'plain, speedy and efficient' under the TIA." Wal-Mart P.R., Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez, 834 F.3d 110, 125 (1st Cir. 2016). -17- --- ------WasHington Trucking Ass 'ns, et al. v-:EmjiTSec.7Teji't, et al., 93079-1 - --- - - - ---- - - - Although the Supreme Court once stated that "Congress did not equate [the TIA's] 'plain, speedy and efficient' with equity's 'plain, adequate and complete,"' Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 526 , l 2017Levin, 560 U.S. at 424 ; see also Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 525 n.33 ("And even where -18- -~--~-- WasfUngton Truc1ang 71.ss 'ns, ef al. v. Emp 't Sec. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
2 sentences2015In Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 109 Wn.2d 107, 160 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987), the court explained, “[T]he doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency.” “ ‘[C]omity is properly exercised when the assumption of jurisdiction would not promote cooperative efforts between states.’ ” Glover v. Alaska, 142 Wn. 2015In Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 109 Wn.2d 107, 160 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987), the court explained, “[T]he doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency.” “ ‘[C]omity is properly exercised when the assumption of jurisdiction would not promote cooperative efforts between states.’ ” Glover v. Alaska, 142 Wn. | 6 | 2007–2020 |
Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board
green
2 sentences2016App. 79, 85 , 802 P.2d 813 (1990). “[T]he doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency.” Haberman v. Wash. Pub. 2015App. 442, 447 , 174 P.3d 1246 (2008) (quoting Carrigan v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 60 Wn. | 3 | 2015–2016 |
Dille v. Toland
green
2 sentences2020“The comity doctrine allows a court, acting within its discretion, to give effect to the law and resulting orders of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect, considering the interests of each jurisdiction.” Toland, 180 Wn.2d at 846 (citing Haberman v. Wash. Pub. 2016The doctrine of comity, however, does not apply beyond the “immediate parties and the underlying claim.” In re Estate of Toland, 180 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 329 P.3d 878 (2014). | 2 | 2016–2020 |
Glover v. State
neutral
2 sentences2015In Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 109 Wn.2d 107, 160 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987), the court explained "the doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency." "[C]omity is properly exercised when the assumption ofjurisdiction would not promote cooperative efforts between states." Glover v. Alaska, 142 Wn. 2015In Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 109 Wn.2d 107, 160 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987), the court explained, “[T]he doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency.” “ ‘[C]omity is properly exercised when the assumption of jurisdiction would not promote cooperative efforts between states.’ ” Glover v. Alaska, 142 Wn. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Glover v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPT. OF TRANSP.
neutral
2 sentences2015App. 442, 447 , 174 P.3d 1246 (2008) (quoting Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Bd., 60 Wn. 2015App. 442, 447 , 174 P.3d 1246 (2008) (quoting Carrigan v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 60 Wn. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services
green
2 sentences2007Id. ¶ 8 Under the comity doctrine, a court has discretion to "give effect to the laws [and resulting judicial orders] of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect, considering the interests of each [jurisdiction]." Haberman v. Wash. Pub. 2007Id. ¶8 Under the comity doctrine, a court has discretion to “give effect to laws [and resulting judicial orders] of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect, considering the interests of each [jurisdiction].” Haberman v. Wash. Pub. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
First Bank of Lincoln v. Donald C. Tuschoff
green
1 sentence2018First Bank of Lincoln v. Tuschoff, 193 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Reynolds v. Day
green
2 sentences2018App. at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reynolds v. Day, 79 Wash. 499, 506 , 140 P. 681 (1914)). -14- No. 77630-4-1/15 The doctrine of comity does not apply here because the trial court was not recognizing or enforcing the Court of Rome’s order. 2018App. at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reynolds v. Day, 79 Wash. 499, 506 , 140 P. 681 (1914)). -14- No. 77630-4-1/15 The doctrine of comity does not apply here because the trial court was not recognizing or enforcing the Court of Rome’s order. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Levin, 560 U.S. at 424 ; see also Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 525 n.33 ("And even where -18- -~--~-- WasfUngton Truc1ang 71.ss 'ns, ef al. v. Emp 't Sec. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Township of Hillsborough v. Cromwell
green
2 sentences2017Next, WTA and the Carriers rely on Carrier Corp. v. Perez, 677 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1982), Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 , 66 S. Ct. 445 , 90 L. 2017Next, WTA and the Carriers rely on Carrier Corp. v. Perez, 677 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1982), Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 , 66 S. Ct. 445 , 90 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Carrier Corporation v. Hon. Julio Cesar Perez, Etc.
green
1 sentence2017Next, WTA and the Carriers rely on Carrier Corp. v. Perez, 677 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1982), Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 , 66 S. Ct. 445 , 90 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Washington Trucking Ass'n v. Employment Security Department
neutral
1 sentence2017Dep 't, 192 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
California v. Grace Brethren Church
green
2 sentences2017California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 408 , 102 S. Ct. 2498 , 73 L. 2017California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 408 , 102 S. Ct. 2498 , 73 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
New West Fisheries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
neutral
1 sentence2014App. 370, 379 , 22 P.3d 1274 (2001) (same). ¶22 The comity doctrine allows a court, acting within its discretion, to give effect to the law and resulting orders of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect, considering the interests of each jurisdiction. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
MacKenzie v. Barthol
green
1 sentence2012App. 235, 240 , 173 P.3d 980 (2007) (alterations in original) (quoting Haberman v. Wash. Pub. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
MacKenzie v. Barthol
green
1 sentence2012But under the doctrine of comity, courts have discretion to “ ‘give effect to the laws [and resulting judicial orders] of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect, considering the interests of each [jurisdiction].’” 9 MacKenzie v. Barthol, 142 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mirgon v. Sherk
neutral
2 sentences1981Yet, as stated in Mirgon v. Sherk, 196 Wash. 690, 693 , 84 P.2d 362 (1938) (overriding foreign law concerning usury): A doctrine of comity, however, does not require that any sister state shall enforce contracts to be performed in another which are so contrary to the laws of the state in which they are sought to be enforced as to work a serious interference with its own policy or laws. 1981Yet, as stated in Mirgon v. Sherk, 196 Wash. 690, 693 , 84 P.2d 362 (1938) (overriding foreign law concerning usury): A doctrine of comity, however, does not require that any sister state shall enforce contracts to be performed in another which are so contrary to the laws of the state in which they are sought to be enforced as to work a serious interference with its own policy or laws. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.