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 1937–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2017Evans, 124 Wn.2d at 444 (determining there was a genuine question of material fact as to the husband’s immunity because he did not show his actual duties to the corporation or to the particular event); Olson, 65 Wn.2d at 877 (holding that the tortfeasor was not entitled to immunity for two reasons: (1) the parking lot was not covered by worker’s compensation statutes and (2) “he was neither ‘acting at his employer’s direction’ nor ‘in the furtherance of his employer’s business’ ”—the employee had finished his day’s work, he had completed his tasks for the day, and he was driving home (quoting 2017Evans, 124 Wn.2d at 444 (determining there was a genuine question of material fact as to the husband's immunity because he did not show his actual duties to the corporation or to the particular event); Olson, 65 Wn.2d at 877 (holding that the tortfeasor was not entitled to immunity for two reasons: (1) the parking lot was not covered by worker's compensation statutes and (2) "he was neither 'acting at his employer's direction' nor 'in the furtherance of his employer's business"'-the employee had finished his day's work, he completed his tasks for the day, and he was driving home (quoting RCW 5 | 2 | 2 |
Olson v. Sterngreen2 sentences2017Evans, 124 Wn.2d at 444 (determining there was a genuine question of material fact as to the husband’s immunity because he did not show his actual duties to the corporation or to the particular event); Olson, 65 Wn.2d at 877 (holding that the tortfeasor was not entitled to immunity for two reasons: (1) the parking lot was not covered by worker’s compensation statutes and (2) “he was neither ‘acting at his employer’s direction’ nor ‘in the furtherance of his employer’s business’ ”—the employee had finished his day’s work, he had completed his tasks for the day, and he was driving home (quoting 2017Evans, 124 Wn.2d at 444 (determining there was a genuine question of material fact as to the husband's immunity because he did not show his actual duties to the corporation or to the particular event); Olson, 65 Wn.2d at 877 (holding that the tortfeasor was not entitled to immunity for two reasons: (1) the parking lot was not covered by worker's compensation statutes and (2) "he was neither 'acting at his employer's direction' nor 'in the furtherance of his employer's business"'-the employee had finished his day's work, he completed his tasks for the day, and he was driving home (quoting RCW 5 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences1994Franklin, 46 Wn. 1993See State v. Franklin, 46 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Taylor v. Cadygreen1 sentence2017Evans, 124 Wn.2d at 444 (determining there was a genuine question of material fact as to the husband’s immunity because he did not show his actual duties to the corporation or to the particular event); Olson, 65 Wn.2d at 877 (holding that the tortfeasor was not entitled to immunity for two reasons: (1) the parking lot was not covered by worker’s compensation statutes and (2) “he was neither ‘acting at his employer’s direction’ nor ‘in the furtherance of his employer’s business’ ”—the employee had finished his day’s work, he had completed his tasks for the day, and he was driving home (quoting | 1 | 1 |
Charbonneau v. MacRurygreen2 sentences1978Ct. App. 1971) (wherein the court affirmed the trial court's determination that an 8 1/2-year old child was not capable of negligence; the court stated that the standard of care applicable was that of children of the same age, intelligence, etc.); see also Charbonneau v. MacRury, 84 N.H. 501 , 153 A. 457 , 73 A.L.R. 1266 (1931) (the court in determining the standard of care applicable to a minor driving a motor vehicle stated: The understanding of this court that the general standard of care governing the conduct of adults, namely, reasonable care under all the circumstances, applies as well t 1978Ct. App. 1971) (wherein the court affirmed the trial court's determination that an 8 1/2-year old child was not capable of negligence; the court stated that the standard of care applicable was that of children of the same age, intelligence, etc.); see also Charbonneau v. MacRury, 84 N.H. 501 , 153 A. 457 , 73 A.L.R. 1266 (1931) (the court in determining the standard of care applicable to a minor driving a motor vehicle stated: The understanding of this court that the general standard of care governing the conduct of adults, namely, reasonable care under all the circumstances, applies as well t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Overlock v. Ruedemanngreen2 sentences1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) 1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Evansgreen2 sentences1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) 1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herzog v. Foster & Marshall, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 442-43 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2017We disagree. 2 105 Wn.2d at 97-98 . 7 No. 34441-0-III State v. Kamps No authority supports the proposition that a waiver occurs prior to a court determining that a waiver has occurred. 3 Here, Mr. Kamps twice failed to appear after being ordered to show up in court, resulting in the issuance of bench warrants for his arrest. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
King v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences1989Determining factors in resolving an issue of "legal causation" have been *385 described as "mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent." King v. Seattle, 84 Wn.2d 239, 250 , 525 P.2d 228 (1974) (quoting 1 T. 1989Determining factors in resolving an issue of "legal causation" have been *385 described as "mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent." King v. Seattle, 84 Wn.2d 239, 250 , 525 P.2d 228 (1974) (quoting 1 T. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.
green
2 sentences1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) 1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Rines v. Rines
green
2 sentences1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) 1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bear v. Auguy
green
2 sentences1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) 1978Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra at 511); but see Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408 , 224 A.2d 63 (1966) (wherein the court, after citing Charbonneau v. MacRury, supra, as authority that the standard of care applicable to a minor includes consideration of the minor's age, experience and wisdom "when engaged in activities appropriate to . . . [the minor's] age, experience and wisdom" went on to hold that a minor operating a motor vehicle was held to the standard of care of an adult). 3 See Overlock v. Ruedemann, 147 Conn. 649 , 165 A.2d 335 (1960); Rines v. Rines, 97 N.H. 55 , 80 A.2d 497 (1951) | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Wills v. Wills
green
1 sentence1957Thus, in Wills v. Wills, 50 Wn. (2d) 439, 312 P. (2d) 661 (decided after the instant case was argued), we held that, in the absence of significant statutory factors or equities, property which had been characterized definitely by the trial court as community property should be divided more equally than one third to one party and two thirds to the other party to the divorce. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Kolbe v. Kolbe
green
2 sentences1957(See Patrick v. Patrick, supra, and cases cited therein; Kolbe v. Kolbe, 50 Wash. 298 , 97 Pac. 236 .) The determining factors or equities may vary from case to case, dependent upon facts and circumstances. 1957(See Patrick v. Patrick, supra, and cases cited therein; Kolbe v. Kolbe, 50 Wash. 298 , 97 Pac. 236 .) The determining factors or equities may vary from case to case, dependent upon facts and circumstances. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Anderson v. Hilker
neutral
2 sentences1937Anderson v. Hilker, 38 Wash. 632 , 80 Pac. 848 ; Peterson v. Arland, 79 Wash. 679 , 141 Pac. 63 . 1937Anderson v. Hilker, 38 Wash. 632 , 80 Pac. 848 ; Peterson v. Arland, 79 Wash. 679 , 141 Pac. 63 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Peterson v. Arland
green
2 sentences1937Anderson v. Hilker, 38 Wash. 632 , 80 Pac. 848 ; Peterson v. Arland, 79 Wash. 679 , 141 Pac. 63 . 1937Anderson v. Hilker, 38 Wash. 632 , 80 Pac. 848 ; Peterson v. Arland, 79 Wash. 679 , 141 Pac. 63 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.