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 1979–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2004Elmore, 139 Wn.2d at 273 (emphasis added); see also Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d at 272 (defense counsel must object to witness’ appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). 2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Elmoregreen2 sentences2004Elmore, 139 Wn.2d at 273 (emphasis added); see also Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d at 272 (defense counsel must object to witness’ appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). 2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. | 1 | 1 |
Everts v. Holtmanngreen1 sentence1990App. 145 , 667 P.2d 1028, 1035 (court in reviewing similar Corporation Code concluded that compliance sheltered a director from liability to the corporation but not from investors with a security claim), review denied, 296 Or. 120 (1983); Arnold v. Dirrim, 398 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
2 sentences2013Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 132 , 744 P. d 2 1032, 750 P. d 254 (1987).The Act also provides that every person who directly or indirectly 2 controls a seller who sells a security in violation of the Act is jointly and severally liable with the seller. 1989RCW 21.20.430(1) states in part: Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.010[ [1] ] .. . is liable to the person buying the security from him or her, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security ... [1] The Washington Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of seller liability in Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987). | 3 | 1989–2016 |
Reves v. Ernst & Young
green
2 sentences2025This, Prestige asserts, confuses two different legal standards because determining whether a promissory note constitutes a security requires analysis under Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 , 110 S. Ct. 945 , 108 L. 2025This, Prestige asserts, confuses two different legal standards because determining whether a promissory note constitutes a security requires analysis under Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 , 110 S. Ct. 945 , 108 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2017Erickson, 188 Wn.2d at 738 n.5. 27 State v. Evans, 100 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Mercer
green
2 sentences2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. 2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Elmore
green
2 sentences2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. 2004Restraint of Mercer, 108 Wash.2d 714, 720 , 741 P.2d 559 (1987) (citation omitted). [132] Id. [133] Id. [134] Elmore, 139 Wash.2d at 273 , 985 P.2d 289 ; see also Rodriguez, 146 Wash.2d at 272 , 45 P.3d 541 (defense counsel must object to witness' appearance in shackles or request a curative instruction to the jury; a trial judge is not required to conduct a security hearing sua sponte). [135] State's Resp. to Pet'r Am. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kaas v. Privette
green
2 sentences1990Rescission is available as a remedy under RCW 21.20.430 which reads in part: (1) Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.010 or 21.20.140 through 21.20-.230, is liable to the person buying the security from him or her, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at eight percent per annum from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, . . .. *481 RCW 21.20.010 has been inte 1990App. 142, 150 , 529 P.2d 23 (1974). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Clausing v. DeHart
green
2 sentences1990Rescission is available as a remedy under RCW 21.20.430 which reads in part: (1) Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.010 or 21.20.140 through 21.20-.230, is liable to the person buying the security from him or her, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at eight percent per annum from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, . . .. *481 RCW 21.20.010 has been inte 1990Rescission is available as a remedy under RCW 21.20.430 which reads in part: (1) Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.010 or 21.20.140 through 21.20-.230, is liable to the person buying the security from him or her, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at eight percent per annum from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, . . .. *481 RCW 21.20.010 has been inte | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Arnold v. Dirrim
green
1 sentence1990App. 145 , 667 P.2d 1028, 1035 (court in reviewing similar Corporation Code concluded that compliance sheltered a director from liability to the corporation but not from investors with a security claim), review denied, 296 Or. 120 (1983); Arnold v. Dirrim, 398 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ludwig v. Mutual Real Estate Investors
green
1 sentence1979Ludwig v. Mutual Real Estate Investors, 18 Wn. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.