ultra vires doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

ultra vires doctrine in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2021 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Port Of Bellingham v. State Of Alaskagreen
washctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021App. 921, 926 , 374 P.3d 170 (2016) (“When public officials enter into contracts that are outside the scope of their authority, the contracts are void and unenforceable under the ultra vires doctrine.”).

11
Millett v. MacKie Mill Co.green
wash · 1938 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982See, e.g., Millett v. Mackie Mill Co., 193 Wash. 477, 483 , 76 P.2d 311 (1938); Green v. Okanogan Cy., 60 Wash. 309, 319 , 111 P. 226 (1910).

1982See, e.g., Millett v. Mackie Mill Co., 193 Wash. 477, 483 , 76 P.2d 311 (1938); Green v. Okanogan Cy., 60 Wash. 309, 319 , 111 P. 226 (1910).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Noel v. Cole green
wash · 1982
2 sentences

2016Noel v. Cole, 98 Wn.2d 375, 378 , 655 P.2d 245 (1982) (superseded by statute on unrelated grounds).

2016Noel v. Cole, 98 Wn.2d 375, 378 , 655 P.2d 245 (1982) (superseded by statute on unrelated grounds).

51983–2016
Railway Co. v. McCarthy green
scotus · 1878
2 sentences

1938In Creditors Claim & Adjustment Co. v. Northwest Loan & Trust Co., supra, which apparently is not overruled although distinguished in the prevailing opinion, we quoted with approval from the following very respectable authorities: “ ‘The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.’ Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258 . “ ‘Although there may be a defect of power in the corporation to make a contract, yet if a contract made by it is not in violation of its charter or of any

1914Bank, 129 N. C. 72, 38 S. E. 252 , it was held, in ruling upon a demurrer to the complaint, that liability could be enforced against the bank upon its guaranty of a draft, basing such holding upon the following citations: “The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258 .

21914–1938
Green v. Okanogan County green
wash · 1910
2 sentences

1982See, e.g., Millett v. Mackie Mill Co., 193 Wash. 477, 483 , 76 P.2d 311 (1938); Green v. Okanogan Cy., 60 Wash. 309, 319 , 111 P. 226 (1910).

1982See, e.g., Millett v. Mackie Mill Co., 193 Wash. 477, 483 , 76 P.2d 311 (1938); Green v. Okanogan Cy., 60 Wash. 309, 319 , 111 P. 226 (1910).

11982–1982
Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co. green
cal · 1863
1 sentence

1938Union Water Co. v. Murphy’s Flat Fluming Co. et al., 22 Cal. 620 ; Morris Railroad Co. v. Railroad Company, 29 N. J.

11938–1938
Tootle v. First National Bank neutral
· 1893
2 sentences

1938Bank, 6 Wash. 181 , 33 Pac. 345 , we held: “The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.

1938Bank, 6 Wash. 181 , 33 Pac. 345 , we held: “The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.

11938–1938
Creditors Claim & Adjustment Co. v. Northwest Loan & Trust Co. neutral
wash · 1914
2 sentences

1920In the case of Creditors Claim & Adjustment Co. v. Northwest Loan & Trust Co., 81 Wash. 247 , 142 Pac. 670 , Ann.

1920In the case of Creditors Claim & Adjustment Co. v. Northwest Loan & Trust Co., 81 Wash. 247 , 142 Pac. 670 , Ann.

11920–1920
McCormick v. Market Bank green
scotus · 1897
1 sentence

1917As said in McCormick v. Market National Bank, 165 U. S. 538 , 549: ‘The doctrine of ultra vires, by which a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful and void and will not support an action, rests, as this court has often recognized and affirmed, upon three distinct grounds: The obligation of any one contracting with a corporation to take notice of the legal limits of its powers; the interest of the stockholders not to be subject to risks which they have never undertaken; and, above all, the interest of the public that the corporation shall not transce

11917–1917
Hutchins v. Bank. neutral
nc · 1901
1 sentence

1914Bank, 129 N. C. 72, 38 S. E. 252 , it was held, in ruling upon a demurrer to the complaint, that liability could be enforced against the bank upon its guaranty of a draft, basing such holding upon the following citations: “The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258 .

11914–1914
Kent v. . Quicksilver Mining Co. green
· 1879
1 sentence

1905The court of appeals of New York in the case of Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159 , spoke as follows: “In the application of the doctrine of ultra vires, it is to be borne in mind that it has two phases: one where the public is concerned; -one where the question is between the corporate body and the stockholders in it, or between it and its stockholders, and third parties dealing with it and through it with them.

11905–1905

Where else courts name it

TX 532 (1883–2026) WA 12 (1905–2021) NY 12 (1885–2025) IL 10 (1904–2015) DE 9 (2018–2024) CA 9 (1894–2026) MN 7 (1887–2003) ID 6 (1910–2025) MO 5 (1903–1984) CO 5 (1910–2021) AR 5 (2017–2026) TN 5 (1915–2016) PA 4 (1904–2016) MI 4 (1898–1975) VA 3 (1924–2010) IN 3 (1900–1993) NC 3 (1901–1994) OH 3 (1984–2019) OK 3 (1913–1916) MS 3 (1999–2004) NJ 3 (1903–1976) WI 2 (1902–1975) IA 2 (1905–1915) DC 2 (1881–2011) MD 2 (1989–2019) AL 2 (1880–2024) GA 2 (1911–1995) MA 2 (1978–1997)

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