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 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schenck v. Kloster Cruise Ltd.green2 sentences2008In another case relied on by Holland America, Schenck v. Kloster Cruise Ltd., 800 F.Supp. 120, 124 (S.D.N.J.1992), it is not clear whether both spouses were passengers, but the court treated the husband's claim as derivative and, insofar as the limitations period was concerned, relied completely on the analysis in Miller . ¶ 30 Because all of the cases ultimately rest on Miller , and all but one involve situations where both spouses were parties to the passenger contracts, they are not persuasive on the issue here — whether a spouse who is a third party vis-á-vis a cruise contract and who asse 2008In another case relied on by Holland America, Schenck v. Kloster Cruise Ltd., 800 F. Supp. 120, 124 (S.D.N.J. 1992), it is not clear whether both spouses were passengers, but the court treated the husband’s claim as derivative and, insofar as the limitations period was concerned, relied completely on the analysis in Miller . f 30 Because all of the cases ultimately rest on Miller , and all but one involve situations where both spouses were parties to the passenger contracts, they are not persuasive on the issue here — whether a spouse who is a third party vis-á-vis a cruise contract and who as | 2 | 2 |
Klingerman v. ExecuCorp, LLC (In Re Klingerman)green1 sentence2015While Garrison-Ashburn has been criticized by some subsequent cases, see, e.g., In re Klingerman, 388 B.R. 677, 679 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sound Infiniti, Inc. ex rel. Pisheyar v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2013Sound Infiniti, Inc. v. Snyder, 145 Wn. 2013Sound Infiniti, Inc. v. Snyder, 145 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2008Oltman, 136 Wash.App. at 126 , 148 P.3d 1050 (citing Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc., 45 Wash. App. 847, 853 , 728 P.2d 617 (1986)). 2008Oltman, 136 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Hickey v. Illinois Central Railroad
green
2 sentences1974With regard to the applicability of this doctrine in connection with our statutory scheme of waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, we observed in Finch v. Matthews, supra at 176 , that: Governmental immunity from estoppel is a derivative of the doctrine conferring the sovereign entity with immunity from suit without its consent. 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 123 (1966); Annot. 1 A.L.R.2d 338 , 340 (1949); Hickey v. Illinois Central R.R., 35 Ill.2d 427 , 220 N.E.2d 415 (1966). 1974With regard to the applicability of this doctrine in connection with our statutory scheme of waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, we observed in Finch v. Matthews, supra at 176 , that: Governmental immunity from estoppel is a derivative of the doctrine conferring the sovereign entity with immunity from suit without its consent. 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 123 (1966); Annot. 1 A.L.R.2d 338 , 340 (1949); Hickey v. Illinois Central R.R., 35 Ill.2d 427 , 220 N.E.2d 415 (1966). | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Davis v. Cox
green
1 sentence2020Davis v. Cox, 180 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wagner v. Foote
green
2 sentences2014The Corlisses concede the claim for usurpation of a corporate opportunity is a derivative claim belonging to WRQ,13 but contend the trial court erred in dismissing all of the claims because each Corliss has independent claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation based on Hughes and Hart's concealment of the purchase of 13 See Wagner v. Foote. 128 Wn.2d 408, 413 , 908 P.2d 884 (1996) (corporate opportunity doctrine centers on misappropriation of business opportunities belonging to corporation). 14 No. 69432-4-1/15 the pits.14 They contend a separate discovery rule analys 2014The Corlisses concede the claim for usurpation of a corporate opportunity is a derivative claim belonging to WRQ,13 but contend the trial court erred in dismissing all of the claims because each Corliss has independent claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation based on Hughes and Hart's concealment of the purchase of 13 See Wagner v. Foote. 128 Wn.2d 408, 413 , 908 P.2d 884 (1996) (corporate opportunity doctrine centers on misappropriation of business opportunities belonging to corporation). 14 No. 69432-4-1/15 the pits.14 They contend a separate discovery rule analys | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2008Oltman, 136 Wash.App. at 126 , 148 P.3d 1050 (citing Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc., 45 Wash. App. 847, 853 , 728 P.2d 617 (1986)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Oltman, 136 Wash.App. at 126 , 148 P.3d 1050 (citing Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc., 45 Wash. App. 847, 853 , 728 P.2d 617 (1986)). 2008Oltman, 136 Wash.App. at 126 , 148 P.3d 1050 (citing Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc., 45 Wash. App. 847, 853 , 728 P.2d 617 (1986)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hoddevik v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp.
green
2 sentences2006State courts presiding over in personam admiralty cases under this statute must follow "substantive maritime law." Hoddevik, 94 Wash.App. at 273 , 970 P.2d 828 . [18] In the reply brief, Oltman cites Green et al v. A.P.C., 136 Wash.2d 87, 101 , 960 P.2d 912 (1998), as authority that loss of consortium is a separate, not a derivative claim. 2006State courts presiding over in personam admiralty cases under this statute must follow "substantive maritime law." Hoddevik, 94 Wash.App. at 273 , 970 P.2d 828 . [18] In the reply brief, Oltman cites Green et al v. A.P.C., 136 Wash.2d 87, 101 , 960 P.2d 912 (1998), as authority that loss of consortium is a separate, not a derivative claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Green v. A.P.C.
green
1 sentence2006State courts presiding over in personam admiralty cases under this statute must follow "substantive maritime law." Hoddevik, 94 Wash.App. at 273 , 970 P.2d 828 . [18] In the reply brief, Oltman cites Green et al v. A.P.C., 136 Wash.2d 87, 101 , 960 P.2d 912 (1998), as authority that loss of consortium is a separate, not a derivative claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Green v. APC (Am. Pharmaceutical Co.)
green
2 sentences2006Green et al v. A.P.C., 136 Wash.2d at 101, 960 P.2d 912 . 2006State courts presiding over in personam admiralty cases under this statute must follow "substantive maritime law." Hoddevik, 94 Wash.App. at 273 , 970 P.2d 828 . [18] In the reply brief, Oltman cites Green et al v. A.P.C., 136 Wash.2d 87, 101 , 960 P.2d 912 (1998), as authority that loss of consortium is a separate, not a derivative claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.
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.