statutory time bar in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2022 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Herrmann v. Cissnagreen wash · 1973 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See Herrmann, 82 Wn.2d at 8 ; Vinther, 176 Wash. at 393 . ¶56 In Beebe , the Supreme Court held that the government’s action to set aside a land patent was not exempt from the statutory time bar applicable to private claims, even though the action was brought by the government.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
United States v. Beebe green · 1888 2 sentences 2016The reason was that the government in that instance had no interest in the suit, had nothing to gain from the relief prayed for, and had nothing to lose if the relief were denied. 127 U.S. at 346 . 2016The reason was that the government in that instance had no interest in the suit, had nothing to gain from the relief prayed for, and had nothing to lose if the relief were denied. 127 U.S. at 346 .	2	2016–2016
Matter of Personal Restraint of Vega green wash · 1992 2 sentences 2011Where the DOC has made no effort to notify a particular individual, the time bar does not apply. [3] Vega, 118 Wash.2d at 451 , 823 P.2d 1111 . 2011Where the DOC has made no effort to notify a particular individual, the time bar does not apply. [3] Vega, 118 Wash.2d at 451 , 823 P.2d 1111 .	2	2011–2011
In re the Personal Restraint of Khan green wash · 2015 1 sentence 2022RCW 10.73.100; Khan, 184 Wn.2d at 686-87 .	1	2022–2022
State v. Webb green washctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2020App. 242, 247-49 , 333 P.3d 470 (2014), was a significant change in the law that exempts his PRP from the statutory time bar.	1	2020–2020
Personal Restraint Petition Of Joseph Leif Wolf green washctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2017App. 496, 510 , 384 P.3d 591 (2016) (holding that Wolf’s personal restraint petition (PRP) was time barred because a special sex offender sentencing alternative revocation did not affect the statutory time bar against a PRP, which time started running seven years earlier when the initial sentencing was completed).	1	2017–2017
State v. Vinther green wash · 1934 1 sentence 2016See Herrmann, 82 Wn.2d at 8 ; Vinther, 176 Wash. at 393 . ¶56 In Beebe , the Supreme Court held that the government’s action to set aside a land patent was not exempt from the statutory time bar applicable to private claims, even though the action was brought by the government.	1	2016–2016
Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condominium Ass'n green washctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2016Club Envy, 184 Wn.	1	2016–2016
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2009By contrast, nothing in the ELC requires that the hearing occur within a specific time frame. ¶17 WSBA further argues we must give weight to the hearing officer’s decision because it addresses the “ ‘credibility and veracity of the witnesses.’ ” Answering Br. of WSBA at 43 (quoting In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wn.2d 707, 717 , 72 P.3d 173 (2003)).	1	2009–2009
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2009By contrast, nothing in the ELC requires that the hearing occur within a specific time frame. ¶17 WSBA further argues we must give weight to the hearing officer’s decision because it addresses the “ ‘credibility and veracity of the witnesses.’ ” Answering Br. of WSBA at 43 (quoting In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wn.2d 707, 717 , 72 P.3d 173 (2003)).	1	2009–2009
Medina v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 green wash · 2002 1 sentence 2005Id. at 316-18, 53 P.3d 993 . ¶ 9 Troxell contends that by filing her complaint on February 8, 2002, she strictly complied with the 60-day requirement.	1	2005–2005
State v. Hunsicker green wash · 1996 1 sentence 1997Id. at 560, 919 P.2d 79 .	1	1997–1997
Matter of Personal Restraint of Moore green wash · 1991 2 sentences 1996E.g., In re Moore, 116 Wash.2d 30 , 803 P.2d 300 (1991); State v. Eilts, 94 Wash.2d 489 , 617 P.2d 993 (1980). 1996E.g., In re Moore, 116 Wash.2d 30 , 803 P.2d 300 (1991); State v. Eilts, 94 Wash.2d 489 , 617 P.2d 993 (1980).	1	1996–1996
State v. Eilts red wash · 1980 2 sentences 1996E.g., In re Moore, 116 Wash.2d 30 , 803 P.2d 300 (1991); State v. Eilts, 94 Wash.2d 489 , 617 P.2d 993 (1980). 1996E.g., In re Moore, 116 Wash.2d 30 , 803 P.2d 300 (1991); State v. Eilts, 94 Wash.2d 489 , 617 P.2d 993 (1980).	1	1996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.090 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 50 (1980–2026) MN 18 (1983–2026) NY 17 (1977–2026) OH 12 (1978–2026) CO 12 (1930–2026) WA 12 (1996–2022) OK 9 (1986–2014) IL 9 (1964–2025) MT 7 (2004–2010) CA 7 (1966–2024) FL 7 (1961–2018) HI 5 (1992–2019) NJ 4 (2006–2020) VA 4 (1998–2007) IA 4 (1979–2025) DE 4 (2021–2026) NC 3 (2007–2025) ND 3 (1993–2018) TX 2 (2003–2010) UT 2 (2009–2018) KS 2 (2012–2014) NM 2 (2001–2013) MO 2 (1966–1997) OR 2 (1986–2020) GA 2 (2017–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check