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 1942–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birkeland v. Corbettgreen2 sentences1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). 1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). | 1 | 2 |
Eliason v. Walkergreen2 sentences1961The person against whom a waiver is claimed must have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit, and his actions must be inconsistent with any other intention than to waive them. [Citing case.]” In Eliason v. Walker, 42 Wn. (2d) 473, 477, 256 P. (2d) 298 (1953), we said: “. . . 1961The person against whom a waiver is claimed must have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit, and his actions must be inconsistent with any other intention than to waive them. [Citing case.]" In Eliason v. Walker, 42 Wn. (2d) 473, 477, 256 P. (2d) 298 (1953), we said: *504 "... | 1 | 2 |
Medina v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 452 (Colo. 2001). ¶ 11 “A release is the relinquishment of a vested right or claim to a person against whom the claim is enforceable.” Neves v. Potter, 769 P.2d 1047, 1049 (Colo. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Neves v. Pottergreen1 sentence2018Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 452 (Colo. 2001). ¶ 11 “A release is the relinquishment of a vested right or claim to a person against whom the claim is enforceable.” Neves v. Potter, 769 P.2d 1047, 1049 (Colo. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. I-10, LTD.green1 sentence2018An insured may agree to a term of settlement and release as the insured sees fit, “so long as [the term] does not violate statutory prohibitions or public policy.” Fox v. I-10, Ltd., 957 P.2d 1018, 1022 (Colo. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
McDaniels v. Carlsongreen2 sentences1994See McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 308 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 1994See McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 308 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025“A waiver by conduct occurs if the actions of the person against whom waiver is claimed are inconsistent with any intention other than waiver.” Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc., 56 Wn. 2024“A waiver by conduct occurs if the actions of the person against whom waiver is claimed are inconsistent with any intention other than waiver.” Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc., 56 Wn. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Bowman v. Webster
green
2 sentences1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). 1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). | 2 | 1958–1989 |
Ward v. Richards & Rossano, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991Ward v. Richards & Rossano, Inc., 51 Wn. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wagner v. Wagner
green
2 sentences1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). 1989It is necessary that the person against whom waiver is claimed have intended to relinquish the right, advantage, or benefit and his action must be inconsistent with any other intent than to waive it.[ 3 ] Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wn.2d 94, 102 , 621 P.2d 1279 (1980); see also Birkeland v. Corbett, 51 Wn.2d 554, 565 , 320 P.2d 635 (1958); Bowman v. Webster, 44 Wn.2d 667, 669 , 269 P.2d 960 (1954). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Symington v. Hudson
green
2 sentences1970The issue in this case is similar to that presented to the Supreme Court in Symington v. Hudson, 40 Wn.2d 331 , 243 P.2d 484 (1952). 1970The issue in this case is similar to that presented to the Supreme Court in Symington v. Hudson, 40 Wn.2d 331 , 243 P.2d 484 (1952). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Hopkins v. Northwestern National Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1944Co., 41 Wash. 592 , 83 Pac. 1019 , we stated: *180 “A waiver is defined to be the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and there can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed had a full knowledge of his rights. 29 Am. & Eng. 1944Co., 41 Wash. 592 , 83 Pac. 1019 , we stated: *180 “A waiver is defined to be the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and there can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed had a full knowledge of his rights. 29 Am. & Eng. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Dorcey v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences1942There was not an unusual number of persons entering and leaving the station, considering the time of day when the accident occurred, and we cannot see how the failure to furnish doorkeepers or attendants, in any way contributed to the happening.” (Italics ours.) In Dorcey v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co., 186 Wis. 590 , 203 N. W. 327 , the court stated: “Before there can be negligence, there must be a breach of duty owing by the person against whom the claim of negligence is made. 1942There was not an unusual number of persons entering and leaving the station, considering the time of day when the accident occurred, and we cannot see how the failure to furnish doorkeepers or attendants, in any way contributed to the happening.” (Italics ours.) In Dorcey v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co., 186 Wis. 590 , 203 N. W. 327 , the court stated: “Before there can be negligence, there must be a breach of duty owing by the person against whom the claim of negligence is made. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.