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.
9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nationgreen2 sentences2007See Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wash.2d 862, 876 , 929 P.2d 379 (1996). ¶ 17 Under federal law, tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects recognized American Indian tribes from suit absent explicit and "unequivocal" waiver or abrogation. 2007See Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wn.2d 862, 876 , 929 P.2d 379 (1996). ¶17 Under federal law, tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects recognized American Indian tribes from suit absent explicit and “unequivocal” waiver or abrogation. | 4 | 4 |
ANDERSON & MIDDLETON LUMBER v. Quinaultgreen2 sentences2007See Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wash.2d 862, 876 , 929 P.2d 379 (1996). ¶ 17 Under federal law, tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects recognized American Indian tribes from suit absent explicit and "unequivocal" waiver or abrogation. 2007See Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wn.2d 862, 876 , 929 P.2d 379 (1996). ¶17 Under federal law, tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects recognized American Indian tribes from suit absent explicit and “unequivocal” waiver or abrogation. | 4 | 4 |
E.F.W. v. St. Stephen's Indian High Schoolgreen2 sentences2017Stephen's Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (lOth Cir. 2001)); Wright, 159 Wn.2d at 111 ("The existence of personal jurisdiction over a party asserting tribal sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo."). 2017Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2001))); Wright, 159 Wn.2d at 111 (“The existence of personal jurisdiction over a party asserting tribal sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo.’’). | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.green2 sentences2017Stephen's Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (lOth Cir. 2001)); Wright, 159 Wn.2d at 111 ("The existence of personal jurisdiction over a party asserting tribal sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo."). 2017Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2001))); Wright, 159 Wn.2d at 111 (“The existence of personal jurisdiction over a party asserting tribal sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo.’’). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Duenas
neutral
1 sentence2023Young v. Duenas, 164 Wn. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n
green
1 sentence2011Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass’n, 141 Wn. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.