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.
10 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2019 0 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 765952green1 sentence2019See Ambassador Hotel Co. v. Wei-Chuan Inv., 189 F.3d 1017 , 1025-27(9th Cir. 1999)(surveying cases and concluding that the phrase means that "[t]he court should consider whether the plaintiff has shown some causal connection between the fraud and the securities transaction in question"(emphasis added)(citing In re Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Rau v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence1994The major difference between the tests appears to be that physical involvement is stressed by cases such as Jerome , at 163-64, and Transamerica, at 26, while cases such as Rau , at 327-34, and Roller , at 687-88, found the causal relation test met when a person was returning to a vehicle from another location. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Switzer v. Sherwood
neutral
2 sentences2009In Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19 , 141 P. 181 (1914), we introduced the causal connection requirement as a limitation on the defense of contributory negligence. 2009In Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19 , 141 P. 181 (1914), we introduced the causal connection requirement as a limitation on the defense of contributory negligence. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Enstone
green
2 sentences2004On appeal, the court disagreed, and held that "investigative costs meet a test that conforms to the causal connection requirement of [ State v. Enstone, 137 Wash.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828 (1999)] because they were reasonably and rationally related to the crime and consequential in the sense that but for the embezzlement, the victim would not have incurred them." Wilson, 100 Wash.App. at 50 , 995 P.2d 1260 . 2004On appeal, the court disagreed and held that “investigative costs meet a test that conforms to the causal connection requirement of [State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828 (1999)] because they were reasonably and rationally related to the crime and consequential in the sense that but for the embezzlement, the victim would not have incurred them.” Wilson, 100 Wn. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Enstone
green
2 sentences2004On appeal, the court disagreed, and held that "investigative costs meet a test that conforms to the causal connection requirement of [ State v. Enstone, 137 Wash.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828 (1999)] because they were reasonably and rationally related to the crime and consequential in the sense that but for the embezzlement, the victim would not have incurred them." Wilson, 100 Wash.App. at 50 , 995 P.2d 1260 . 2004On appeal, the court disagreed and held that “investigative costs meet a test that conforms to the causal connection requirement of [State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828 (1999)] because they were reasonably and rationally related to the crime and consequential in the sense that but for the embezzlement, the victim would not have incurred them.” Wilson, 100 Wn. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Beckman v. Connolly
green
2 sentences2004Co., 92 Wash.2d 21, 26 , 593 P.2d 156 (1979) (concluding it is not necessary that the use be a proximate cause of the injury for there to be a causal connection), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); Beckman v. Connolly, 79 Wash.App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that "the `use' need not be a `proximate' cause of the occurrence or injury" to satisfy the causal connection requirement). 2004App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that “the ‘use’ need not be a ‘proximate’ cause of the occurrence or injury” to satisfy the causal connection requirement). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2000Thus, the investigation expenses are a "reasonable consequence of [Wilson-Farler's] act[s] of embezzlement." Johnson, 69 Wash.App. at 193 , 847 P.2d 960 . 2000Thus, the investigation expenses are a "reasonable consequence of [Wilson-Farler's] act[s] of embezzlement." Johnson, 69 Wash.App. at 193 , 847 P.2d 960 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Transamerica Insurance Group v. United Pacific Insurance
green
2 sentences2004Co., 92 Wash.2d 21, 26 , 593 P.2d 156 (1979) (concluding it is not necessary that the use be a proximate cause of the injury for there to be a causal connection), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); Beckman v. Connolly, 79 Wash.App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that "the `use' need not be a `proximate' cause of the occurrence or injury" to satisfy the causal connection requirement). 2004Co., 92 Wash.2d 21, 26 , 593 P.2d 156 (1979) (concluding it is not necessary that the use be a proximate cause of the injury for there to be a causal connection), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); Beckman v. Connolly, 79 Wash.App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that "the `use' need not be a `proximate' cause of the occurrence or injury" to satisfy the causal connection requirement). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Olson
green
2 sentences2004Co., 92 Wash.2d 21, 26 , 593 P.2d 156 (1979) (concluding it is not necessary that the use be a proximate cause of the injury for there to be a causal connection), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); Beckman v. Connolly, 79 Wash.App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that "the `use' need not be a `proximate' cause of the occurrence or injury" to satisfy the causal connection requirement). 2004Co., 92 Wash.2d 21, 26 , 593 P.2d 156 (1979) (concluding it is not necessary that the use be a proximate cause of the injury for there to be a causal connection), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); Beckman v. Connolly, 79 Wash.App. 265, 274 , 898 P.2d 357 (1995) (recognizing that "the `use' need not be a `proximate' cause of the occurrence or injury" to satisfy the causal connection requirement). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2004On appeal, the court disagreed, and held that "investigative costs meet a test that conforms to the causal connection requirement of [ State v. Enstone, 137 Wash.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828 (1999)] because they were reasonably and rationally related to the crime and consequential in the sense that but for the embezzlement, the victim would not have incurred them." Wilson, 100 Wash.App. at 50 , 995 P.2d 1260 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Jerome
green
1 sentence1994Alvarino , at 567-68; Jerome, 122 Wn.2d at 162-63 . 12 The only difference between the facts in Alvarino and the facts here is that in Alvarino the dog was not leashed. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.