exception to a general rule (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

exception to a general rule in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2018 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co.green
wash · 1992 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2003
2 sentences

2003Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 , 294 n.7, 840 P.2d 860 (1992) (“[w]hile RCW 4.22.030 suggests that RCW 4.22.070 is an exception to a general rule, RCW 4.22.070 is in fact an exception that has all but swallowed the general rule”).

2003Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 , 294 n.7, 840 P.2d 860 (1992) (“[w]hile RCW 4.22.030 suggests that RCW 4.22.070 is an exception to a general rule, RCW 4.22.070 is in fact an exception that has all but swallowed the general rule”).

46
Kottler v. Stategreen
wash · 1998 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Further, the Legislature amended RCW 4.22.030 to make it applicable “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in RCW 4.22.070. ” “While RCW 4.22.030 suggests that RCW 4.22.070 is an exception to a general rule, RCW 4.22.070 is in fact an exception that has all but swallowed the general rule.” Washburn, 120 Wn.2d at 294 n.7; accord Kottler, 136 Wn.2d at 443 n.5.

2001Further, the Legislature amended RCW 4.22.030 to make it applicable "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in RCW 4.22.070." "While RCW 4.22.030 suggests that RCW 4.22.070 is an exception to a general rule, RCW 4.22.070 is in fact an exception that has all but swallowed the general rule." Washburn, 120 Wash.2d at 294 n. 7, 840 P.2d 860 ; accord, Kottler, 136 Wash.2d at 443 n. 5, 963 P.2d 834 .

22
Kottler v. Stategreen
wash · 1998 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Further, the Legislature amended RCW 4.22.030 to make it applicable "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in RCW 4.22.070." "While RCW 4.22.030 suggests that RCW 4.22.070 is an exception to a general rule, RCW 4.22.070 is in fact an exception that has all but swallowed the general rule." Washburn, 120 Wash.2d at 294 n. 7, 840 P.2d 860 ; accord, Kottler, 136 Wash.2d at 443 n. 5, 963 P.2d 834 .

2001Thus, "RCW 4.22.070, the centerpiece of the 1986 amendatory package, requires all liability be apportioned unless a listed exception applies in which case joint and several liability is retained." Kottler, 136 Wash.2d at 443 , 963 P.2d 834 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Kohne v. White neutral
· 1895
2 sentences

1944Kohne v. White, 12 Wash. 199 , 40 Pac. 794 ; Purcell v. Warburton, 70 Wash. 129 , *734 126 Pac. 89 .

1944Kohne v. White, 12 Wash. 199 , 40 Pac. 794 ; Purcell v. Warburton, 70 Wash. 129 , *734 126 Pac. 89 .

21918–1944
Purcell v. Warburton neutral
wash · 1912
2 sentences

1944Kohne v. White, 12 Wash. 199 , 40 Pac. 794 ; Purcell v. Warburton, 70 Wash. 129 , *734 126 Pac. 89 .

1944Kohne v. White, 12 Wash. 199 , 40 Pac. 794 ; Purcell v. Warburton, 70 Wash. 129 , *734 126 Pac. 89 .

21918–1944
State v. Ramos green
wash · 2017
1 sentence

2018The Washington Supreme Court, in State v. Ramos, 187 Wn.2d 420 (2017), also ignored the principle that one who relies on an exception to a general rule bears the burden of proving that the case falls within the exception. 29 AM.

12018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.030 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.005 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.015 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 15 (1906–2025) MI 10 (1978–2024) WA 9 (1918–2018) LA 7 (1935–2005) NE 5 (1931–2024) TX 5 (1877–2017) PA 4 (1941–2013) WI 4 (1988–2018) NY 4 (1836–2004) OH 3 (1857–2011) CT 3 (1993–2001) AL 2 (1874–1913)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check