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.
13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerrangreen2 sentences2025See Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 , 872 P.2d 1090 (1994) (noting that municipalities may develop vesting schemes “[w]ithin the parameters of the doctrine established by statutory and case law”). 2 A preliminary plat is “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.020(4). -7- No. 86285-5-I proposal, the PUD ordinance is one of the laws in effect at the time of application to which the vested right 2025See Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 , 872 P.2d 1090 (1994) (noting that municipalities may develop vesting schemes “[w]ithin the parameters of the doctrine established by statutory and case law”). 2 A preliminary plat is “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.020(4). -7- No. 86285-5-I proposal, the PUD ordinance is one of the laws in effect at the time of application to which the vested right | 2 | 6 |
Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kentgreen2 sentences2025See Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 , 872 P.2d 1090 (1994) (noting that municipalities may develop vesting schemes “[w]ithin the parameters of the doctrine established by statutory and case law”). 2 A preliminary plat is “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.020(4). -7- No. 86285-5-I proposal, the PUD ordinance is one of the laws in effect at the time of application to which the vested right 2024See Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 , 872 P.2d 1090 (1994) (noting that municipalities may develop vesting schemes “[w]ithin the parameters of the doctrine established by statutory and case law”). 2 A preliminary plat is “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.020(4). -7- No. 86285-5-I proposal, the PUD ordinance is one of the laws in effect at the time of application to which the vested right | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . 2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . 2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.green1 sentence2022Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Acrey
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . 2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Acrey
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . 2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kinzy
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . 2018See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 748 , 64 P.3d 594 (2003); Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Arnold v. Melani
green
2 sentences2008Arnold, 75 Wash.2d at 152 , 449 P.2d 800 . 2008Arnold, 75 Wn.2d at 152 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Peoples Savings Bank v. Frank Bufford
green
2 sentences2008But although the Huntingtons' encroachment does not fit within the slight encroachment illustrated by Arnold and Hanson, the Arnold court specifically cited People's Savings Bank v. Bufford, 90 Wash. 204 , 155 P. 1068 (1916), as support for its premise that the court is not required to issue an oppressive injunction, and as support for its five-part rule setting the parameters of the exception. 2008But although the Huntingtons’ encroachment does not fit within the slight encroachment illustrated by Arnold and Hanson, the Arnold court specifically cited Peoples Savings Bank v. Bufford, 90 Wash. 204 , 155 P. 1068 (1916), as support for its premise that the court is not required to issue an oppressive injunction, and as support for its five-part rule setting the parameters of the exception. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Davis v. Cox
green
1 sentence2020App. at 532-33, 4 The parties dispute whether Division One’s decision in Davis I (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss under Washington’s then-existing anti-SLAPP statute) applies as the “law of the case,” thereby limiting the parameters of our analysis in the present appeal. 180 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Company
green
2 sentences1981See King; Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App. 395 , 403 P.2d 330 (1965); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976). 1981See King; Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App. 395 , 403 P.2d 330 (1965); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company
green
2 sentences1981See King; Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App. 395 , 403 P.2d 330 (1965); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976). 1981See King; Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App. 395 , 403 P.2d 330 (1965); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976). | 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.