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 2014–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2025It also rejected the two-part PRA injunction standard set forth in RCW 42.56.540 and Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 190 Wn.2d 769 , 418 P.3d 102 (2018), reasoning that “establishment of the [First Amendment] right itself mandates the issuance of an injunction.” Does II, 27 Wn. 2025It also rejected the two-part PRA injunction standard set forth in RCW 42.56.540 and Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 190 Wn.2d 769 , 418 P.3d 102 (2018), reasoning that “establishment of the [First Amendment] right itself mandates the issuance of an injunction.” Does II, 27 Wn. | 3 | 5 |
Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Boardgreen2 sentences2025Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 790-91, 779-80 (if the information is exempt, “then ‘judicial inquiry commences’ with the court applying the PRA injunction standard” (quoting Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 )); Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 408 , 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion). 2025Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 790-91, 779-80 (if the information is exempt, “then ‘judicial inquiry commences’ with the court applying the PRA injunction standard” (quoting Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 )); Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 408 , 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 3 |
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co.green2 sentences2025No. 102182-8 the exemption at issue is expressly set out in the PRA or incorporated via an ‘other statute’” (citing PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 258 ; Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36, 39 )); see also Soter v. Cowles Publ’g Co., 162 Wn.2d 716, 757 , 174 P.3d 60 (2007) (plurality opinion). 2025No. 102182-8 the exemption at issue is expressly set out in the PRA or incorporated via an ‘other statute’” (citing PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 258 ; Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36, 39 )); see also Soter v. Cowles Publ’g Co., 162 Wn.2d 716, 757 , 174 P.3d 60 (2007) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 2 |
Seattle Times Co. v. Serkogreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Seattle Times Co., 170 Wn.2d 581 (discussed infra at 9-10). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. City of Federal Way
green
2 sentences2025After all, PRA exemptions are recognized through the operation of the PRA, not outside it.”). “[O]ur case law interpreting the PRA injunction statute makes clear that finding an exemption applies under the PRA does not ipso facto support issuing an injunction.” Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 786 (citing Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 ; Soter, 162 Wn.2d at 757 ; Morgan v. City of Federal Way, 166 Wn.2d 747, 756-57 , 20 John Does v. Seattle Police Dep’t et al. 2025After all, PRA exemptions are recognized through the operation of the PRA, not outside it.”). “[O]ur case law interpreting the PRA injunction statute makes clear that finding an exemption applies under the PRA does not ipso facto support issuing an injunction.” Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 786 (citing Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 ; Soter, 162 Wn.2d at 757 ; Morgan v. City of Federal Way, 166 Wn.2d 747, 756-57 , 20 John Does v. Seattle Police Dep’t et al. | 3 | 2018–2025 |
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington
green
2 sentences2025Id.; PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 257-58 ; Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 . 2025No. 102182-8 the exemption at issue is expressly set out in the PRA or incorporated via an ‘other statute’” (citing PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 258 ; Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36, 39 )); see also Soter v. Cowles Publ’g Co., 162 Wn.2d 716, 757 , 174 P.3d 60 (2007) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2025Id.; SEIU Healthcare, 193 Wn. 2025Id.; SEIU Healthcare, 193 Wn. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
BAINBRIDGE POLICE GUILD v. City of Puyallup
green
2 sentences2025Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 790-91, 779-80 (if the information is exempt, “then ‘judicial inquiry commences’ with the court applying the PRA injunction standard” (quoting Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 )); Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 408 , 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion). 2025Lyft, 190 Wn.2d at 790-91, 779-80 (if the information is exempt, “then ‘judicial inquiry commences’ with the court applying the PRA injunction standard” (quoting Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 36 )); Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 408 , 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Wright v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2014App. 585 , 596 -97, 309 P. 3d 662 ( 2013), review denied, No. 89396 -9 ( Wash. Feb. 6, 2014) ( holding that juvenile records at issue were exempt from disclosure under an " other statute," chaptef 13. 50 RCW, which provides the exclusive means of obtaining juvenile justice and care records, without discussing the PRA injunction standard). 12 No. 44520 -4 -II standard, RCW 42. 56. 540, must also be met. 2014App. 585, 596-97 , 309 P.3d 662 (2013) (holding that juvenile records at issue were exempt from disclosure under an “other statute,” chapter 13.50 RCW, which provides the exclusive means of obtaining juvenile justice and care records, without discussing the PRA injunction standard), review denied, 179 Wn.2d 1021 (2014). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Port of Seattle v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
green
2 sentences2018Tyler Pipe Indus., 96 Wash.2d at 792 , 638 P.2d 1213 (quoting Port of Seattle v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union , 52 Wash.2d 317 , 319, 324 P.2d 1099 (1958) ). ¶ 23 The City counters that the PRA injunction standard applies rather than the UTSA standard because L/R seek to enjoin the City from complying with its duty to disclose records under the PRA. 2018Tyler Pipe Indus., 96 Wash.2d at 792 , 638 P.2d 1213 (quoting Port of Seattle v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union , 52 Wash.2d 317 , 319, 324 P.2d 1099 (1958) ). ¶ 23 The City counters that the PRA injunction standard applies rather than the UTSA standard because L/R seek to enjoin the City from complying with its duty to disclose records under the PRA. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2018Tyler Pipe Indus., 96 Wash.2d at 792 , 638 P.2d 1213 (quoting Port of Seattle v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union , 52 Wash.2d 317 , 319, 324 P.2d 1099 (1958) ). ¶ 23 The City counters that the PRA injunction standard applies rather than the UTSA standard because L/R seek to enjoin the City from complying with its duty to disclose records under the PRA. 2018Tyler Pipe Indus., 96 Wash.2d at 792 , 638 P.2d 1213 (quoting Port of Seattle v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union , 52 Wash.2d 317 , 319, 324 P.2d 1099 (1958) ). ¶ 23 The City counters that the PRA injunction standard applies rather than the UTSA standard because L/R seek to enjoin the City from complying with its duty to disclose records under the PRA. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.