13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adkinson v. Digby, Inc.green2 sentences2021See CR 4(d)(5) (voluntary appearance of a defendant does not preclude challenge to jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)); see also Adkinson v. Digby, Inc., 99 Wn.2d 206, 209 , 660 P.2d 756 (1983) (notice of appearance does not waive challenge to sufficiency of service of process; to hold otherwise would ignore the civil rules and reinstitute “long-abolished distinction between special and general 5 As discussed infra, actual notice is relevant to the relation back analysis under CR 15(c). 10 No. 82542-9-I/11 appearances”). 2021See CR 4(d)(5) (voluntary appearance of a defendant does not preclude challenge to jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)); see also Adkinson v. Digby, Inc., 99 Wn.2d 206, 209 , 660 P.2d 756 (1983) (notice of appearance does not waive challenge to sufficiency of service of process; to hold otherwise would ignore the civil rules and reinstitute “long-abolished distinction between special and general 5 As discussed infra, actual notice is relevant to the relation back analysis under CR 15(c). 10 No. 82542-9-I/11 appearances”). | 1 | 1 |
Grant v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2013Grant, 7 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Mayle v. Felixgreen1 sentence2013Id. at 660-61, 664 . | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. Roberts & Schaeffer Co.green1 sentence1981See Olson v. Roberts & Schaeffer Co., 25 Wn. | 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. Eppens
green
2 sentences2013App. 119, 123 , 633 P.2d 92 (1981) (permitting State to amend information after time limit had passed based "on the relation back doctrine, embodied in CR 15(c) and applicable to criminal cases"). -6- In re Pers. 2013App. 119, 123 , 633 P.2d 92 (1981) (permitting State to amend information after time limit had passed based “on the relation back doctrine, embodied in CR 15(c) and applicable to criminal cases”). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Veradale Valley Citizens' Planning Committee v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2001This court ruled that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable because the appellant was "attempting to introduce and not substitute a new party to the proceedings long after the statutory time period for review has passed." Veradale, 22 Wash.App. at 238 , 588 P.2d 750 . 2001This court ruled that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable because the appellant was “attempting to introduce and not substitute a new party to the proceedings long after the statutory time period for review ha[d] passed.” Veradale, 22 Wn. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Ass'n v. Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 369 , 635 P.2d 721 (1981) overruled on other grounds Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325 , 815 P.2d 781 (1991). [5] Relation back with regard to a party is critical when the party is "necessary" under CR 19 and the pertinent statute of limitations has expired; here the parties concede the City is a necessary party. [6] Although not argued by the parties, the doctrine of relation back also applies where a plaintiff serves a party after the applicable statute of limitations has run, if one proper defendant was served within the limitations period. 1999Ass'n v. Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 369 , 635 P.2d 721 (1981) overruled on other grounds Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325 , 815 P.2d 781 (1991). [5] Relation back with regard to a party is critical when the party is "necessary" under CR 19 and the pertinent statute of limitations has expired; here the parties concede the City is a necessary party. [6] Although not argued by the parties, the doctrine of relation back also applies where a plaintiff serves a party after the applicable statute of limitations has run, if one proper defendant was served within the limitations period. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Board
green
1 sentence2019However, to the extent any appropriations may interfere with MIFs set in the Dungeness Rule, the relation-back doctrine does not apply, pursuant to Postema and Swinomish. 142 Wn.2d at 80 n.2; 178 Wn.2d at 591 n.9. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences2019Swinomish reaffirmed that the relation-back doctrine does not apply when appropriation would conflict with MIFs. 178 Wn.2d at 591 n.9 (“[T]he date the permit is approved, not the date of application, determines the priority date of the permit to appropriate and consequently whether the water right obtained under the permit is subject to the minimum flows or levels.”); cf RCW 90.03.340. 2019However, to the extent any appropriations may interfere with MIFs set in the Dungeness Rule, the relation-back doctrine does not apply, pursuant to Postema and Swinomish. 142 Wn.2d at 80 n.2; 178 Wn.2d at 591 n.9. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Young v. Estate of Snell
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 270 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
North Street Ass'n v. City of Olympia
green
2 sentences1999Ass'n v. Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 369 , 635 P.2d 721 (1981) overruled on other grounds Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325 , 815 P.2d 781 (1991). [5] Relation back with regard to a party is critical when the party is "necessary" under CR 19 and the pertinent statute of limitations has expired; here the parties concede the City is a necessary party. [6] Although not argued by the parties, the doctrine of relation back also applies where a plaintiff serves a party after the applicable statute of limitations has run, if one proper defendant was served within the limitations period. 1999Ass'n v. Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 369 , 635 P.2d 721 (1981) overruled on other grounds Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325 , 815 P.2d 781 (1991). [5] Relation back with regard to a party is critical when the party is "necessary" under CR 19 and the pertinent statute of limitations has expired; here the parties concede the City is a necessary party. [6] Although not argued by the parties, the doctrine of relation back also applies where a plaintiff serves a party after the applicable statute of limitations has run, if one proper defendant was served within the limitations period. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, Land
green
2 sentences1993Buena Vista, 113 S. Ct. at 1137 . 1993Buena Vista, 113 S. Ct. at 1137 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Fischer
green
2 sentences1985App. 506 , 699 P.2d 249 (1985) attempted to distinguish our holding in Glover , allowing the State under the relation back doctrine to file an untimely amendment to an original information which itself was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. 1985App. 506 , 699 P.2d 249 (1985) attempted to distinguish our holding in Glover , allowing the State under the relation back doctrine to file an untimely amendment to an original information which itself was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1981Ct. App. 1969); State v. Glover, supra. In support of the continuing validity of the amended information, the State relies on the relation back doctrine, embodied in CR 15(c) and applicable to criminal cases, see State v. Smith, 16 Wn. 1981App. 425, 432 , 558 P.2d 265 (1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Rice
green
1 sentence1981We therefore consider whether the amendments to counts 2 through 4 after the limitation period broadened the charge and thus barred relation back. 4 Before addressing this question, however, we first respond to the State's contention that the concurrent sentence doctrine should be applied in this case, as it was in State v. Rice, 24 Wn. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Citizens Interested in the Transfusion of Yesteryear v. Board of Regents of the University of Washington
green
2 sentences1978Thus, we conclude that the relation-back doctrine under CR 15(c) is not available. *239 Applicability of the Tentative Commencement Theory Appellant next assigns error to the court's failure to apply the tentative commencement theory of Citizens Interested in the Transfusion of Yesteryear v. Board of Regents, 86 Wn.2d 323 , 544 P.2d 740 (1976). 1978Thus, we conclude that the relation-back doctrine under CR 15(c) is not available. *239 Applicability of the Tentative Commencement Theory Appellant next assigns error to the court's failure to apply the tentative commencement theory of Citizens Interested in the Transfusion of Yesteryear v. Board of Regents, 86 Wn.2d 323 , 544 P.2d 740 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.