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 1 courts 2004–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2026Justiciability incorporates “ ‘ the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and ripeness, as well as the federal case-or- controversy requirement.’ ” Wash. State Council of County & City Emps. v. City of Spokane, 200 Wn.2d 678 , 685, 520 P.3d 991 (2022) (quoting To-Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wn.2d at 411 ). 2023Lakehaven Water and Sewer Dist. v. City of Federal Way, 195 Wn.2d 742 , 769, 466 P.3d 213 (2020); Wash. State Council of County and City Emps. v. City of Spokane, 200 Wn.2d 678 , 685, 520 P.3d 991 (2022) (“ ‘Inherent in these four requirements are the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and 11 The first two arbitrations resulted in two opposing views of the definition of “units sold.” 20 No. 84265-0-I/21 ripeness, as well as the federal case-or-controversy requirement.’ ” (quoting To- Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wn.2d at 411 )); To-Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wn.2d at 414 (the third justicia | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins
green
2 sentences2018Claims for declaratory relief must meet "the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and ripeness, as well as the federal case-or-controversy requirement." To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403, 411 , 27 P.3d 1149 (2001). 2004"Inherent in these four requirements are the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and ripeness, as well as the federal case-or-controversy requirement." Id. | 2 | 2004–2018 |
City of Longview v. Wallin
green
1 sentence2018City of Longview v. Wallin, 174 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Diversified Industries Development Corp. v. Ripley
green
1 sentence2015“Inherent in these four requirements are the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and ripeness, as well as the federal case-or-controversy requirement.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
American Legion Post No. 149 v. Department of Health
green
1 sentence2013Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep’t of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570, 593 , 192 P.3d 306 (2008). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
American Legion Post 149 v. WASH. DEPT. OF HEALTH
green
1 sentence2013Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep’t of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570, 593 , 192 P.3d 306 (2008). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.