11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 389579green1 sentence2025See e.g., Weil, 647 F.2d at 25. | 1 | 1 |
Sarah Murphy v. Sfbsc Management, LLCgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1050 (9th Cir. 2019) (identifying “several aspects of the settlement that . . . cast serious doubt on whether the settlement meets the applicable fairness standard”); Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. | 1 | 1 |
Lillian Hayden v. Atochem North America, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Klier, 658 F.3d 468 . | 1 | 1 |
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Maringreen1 sentence1993Burnham, 495 U.S. at 637-40 (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment) ("as a rule the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on his voluntary presence in the forum will satisfy the requirements of due process"). | 1 | 1 |
David H. Stuart and Richard A. Whitaker v. Richard G. Spademangreen1 sentence1988See Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1191-92 (5th Cir. 1985) ("the fairness factors [of the third due process element] cannot of themselves invest the court with jurisdiction over a nonresident when the minimum-contacts analysis weighs against the exercise of jurisdiction"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
green
2 sentences2001In other words, a fairness hearing under CR 23(e) "is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule `designed to protect absentees.'" Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 849 , 119 S.Ct. 2295 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 ). 2001In other words, a fairness hearing under CR 23(e) “is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule ‘designed to protect absentees.’ ” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 849 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 ). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
green
2 sentences2001In other words, a fairness hearing under CR 23(e) "is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule `designed to protect absentees.'" Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 849 , 119 S.Ct. 2295 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 ). 2001In other words, a fairness hearing under CR 23(e) “is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule ‘designed to protect absentees.’ ” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 849 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 ). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
1 sentence2024Eisen, 417 U.S. at 173 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp.
green
1 sentence2023Corp., 383 F.Supp.3d 959 , 967 n.5 (N.D. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Dominguez
green
1 sentence2015Mr. Payne contends the trial judge should have recused herself because the record shows she was biased against him from the outset of his case. 15 No. 32096-1-111 State v. Payne "Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and Canon 3(0)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct [ 1also require a judge to disqualify [herself] if [she] is biased against a party or [her] impartiality may reasonably be questioned." State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McKown v. Simon Property Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Despite applying a foreseeability test in a premises liability case, our Supreme Court in its recent decision, McKown v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 182 Wn.2d 752 (2015), questioned the fairness of such a test. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences1983In Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) we held the appearance of fairness doctrine was inapplicable to administrative decisions such as those involving building permit applications. 1983In Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) we held the appearance of fairness doctrine was inapplicable to administrative decisions such as those involving building permit applications. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.