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 1995–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abilities and Goodwill, Inc., Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Etc.green2 sentences2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion's resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶ 70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w 2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion’s resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activ ity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w | 2 | 2 |
Bob Evans Farms, Incorporated, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Crossgreen2 sentences2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion's resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶ 70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w 2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion’s resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activ ity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w | 2 | 2 |
State v. Frederickgreen2 sentences2026App. at 262 ; see also State v. Osborne, 102 Wn.2d 87, 97 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (a denial of improper influence “is ‘highly persuasive’ evidence that a plea is voluntary, but it is not ‘conclusive’” (quoting State v. Frederick, 100 Wn.2d 550, 557 , 674 P.2d 136 (1983))). 2026App. at 262 ; see also State v. Osborne, 102 Wn.2d 87, 97 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (a denial of improper influence “is ‘highly persuasive’ evidence that a plea is voluntary, but it is not ‘conclusive’” (quoting State v. Frederick, 100 Wn.2d 550, 557 , 674 P.2d 136 (1983))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Osbornegreen2 sentences2026App. at 262 ; see also State v. Osborne, 102 Wn.2d 87, 97 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (a denial of improper influence “is ‘highly persuasive’ evidence that a plea is voluntary, but it is not ‘conclusive’” (quoting State v. Frederick, 100 Wn.2d 550, 557 , 674 P.2d 136 (1983))). 2026App. at 262 ; see also State v. Osborne, 102 Wn.2d 87, 97 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (a denial of improper influence “is ‘highly persuasive’ evidence that a plea is voluntary, but it is not ‘conclusive’” (quoting State v. Frederick, 100 Wn.2d 550, 557 , 674 P.2d 136 (1983))). | 1 | 1 |
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Countygreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 41 , 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (finding an EIS inadequate for impermissibly excluding certain reasonable alternatives). 2017See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 41 , 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (finding an EIS inadequate for impermissibly excluding certain reasonable alternatives). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fivecap, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner
green
2 sentences2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion's resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶ 70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w 2009Even if I agreed that the exception should be narrowed, the lead opinion’s resulting analysis misses the question presented in this case. ¶70 Although courts have recognized that employees generally are not protected for engaging in concerted activ ity specifically for the purpose of seeking the termination of a supervisor if such decision is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer, see Bob Evans Farms, 163 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the termination of a supervisor does not relate to a term or condition of employment), an employee protest over a change in management that affects the w | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Perez
green
1 sentence2026Where the court also conducts an adequate plea colloquy, the resulting presumption of voluntariness is “well nigh irrefutable.” Perez, 33 Wn. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. France
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Of Washington v. Hailu Dagnew Mandefero
green
1 sentence2024Mandefero, 14 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hunter v. State
green
2 sentences2024In response to questioning by this panel, Leer distinguished Keller because it addressed the compliance of breath test machines with those specific rules and averred that it does not control outside of that particular context. 6 Leer 6 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 1 min., 2 sec. -5- No. 86863-2-I/6 further argued that Keller is distinguishable because the Supreme Court found the overall procedure in that case complied with the controlling law, even if the machines themselves did not, whereas here, the expiration of the vials was evidence of inadequate preservation which undermined 2024Id. at 362 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence2018State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence2018State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Reyes-Brooks
neutral
1 sentence2014State v. Reyes- Brooks, 165 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence1995Sanchez, 69 Wn. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.