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 1979–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co.
green
2 sentences2025However, under RAP 1.2(a), a “ ‘technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review, where justice is to be served by such review.’ ” State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 220 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). 2025However, under RAP 1.2(a), a “ ‘technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review, where justice is to be served by such review.’ ” State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 220 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). | 13 | 1979–2025 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2025However, under RAP 1.2(a), a “ ‘technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review, where justice is to be served by such review.’ ” State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 220 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). 2025However, under RAP 1.2(a), a “ ‘technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review, where justice is to be served by such review.’ ” State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 220 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). | 7 | 1986–2025 |
State v. Olson
green
2 sentences2024Nevertheless, “‘technical violation[s] of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review.’” State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 322 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). 2024Nevertheless, “‘technical violation[s] of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review.’” State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 322 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d 704, 710 , 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Goehle v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
green
1 sentence2016App. 609 , 613- 14, 1 P.3d 579 (2000) (noting that "[a] technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review where justice is to be served"). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wolf v. Boeing Company
green
1 sentence1994App. 316 , 322 n.5, 810 P.2d 943 ("A technical violation of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review where justice is to be served by such review."), review denied, 117 Wn.2d 1020 (1991). 4 We agree. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Geise v. Lee
green
2 sentences1994Schaeffer does not discuss the Restatement (Second) of Torts and does not discuss Geise v. Lee, 84 Wn.2d 866 , 529 P.2d 1054 (1975) which, although addressing the issue in the landlord-tenant context, rejected the natural accumulations rule and adopted a traditional negligence analysis. 1994Schaeffer does not discuss the Restatement (Second) of Torts and does not discuss Geise v. Lee, 84 Wn.2d 866 , 529 P.2d 1054 (1975) which, although addressing the issue in the landlord-tenant context, rejected the natural accumulations rule and adopted a traditional negligence analysis. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.