purpose of this general rule (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

purpose of this general rule in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2024 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Postema v. Postema Enterprises, Inc.green
washctapp · 2003 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013
2 sentences

2013App. 185, 193 , 72 P.3d 1122 (2003) (“The purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct errors and avoid unnecessary retrials.”).

2013App. 185, 193 , 72 P.3d 1122 (2003).

13
Norcon Builders, LLC v. GMP Homes VG, LLCgreen
washctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012App. 185, 193 , 72 P.3d 1122 (2003); see also Norcon Builders, LLC v. GMP Homes VG, LLC, 161 Wn.

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Postema v. Postema Enterprises, Inc. green
washctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2013“The purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct errors and avoid unnecessary retrials.” Postema v. Postema Enters., Inc., 118 Wn.

2012“The purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct errors and avoid unnecessary retrials.” Postema v. Postema Enters., Inc., 118 Wn.

82012–2024
Buck Mountain Owners' Ass'n v. Prestwich green
washctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2024We decline to reach this argument. 12 No. 57231-1-II In general, we “may refuse to review any claim of error [that] was not raised in the trial court.” RAP 2.5(a). “‘The purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct errors and avoid unnecessary retrials.’” Buck Mountain Owners’ Ass’n v. Prestwich, 174 Wn.

2024App. 702, 720 , 308 P.3d 644 (2013) (quoting Postema v. Postema Enters., Inc., 118 Wn.

12024–2024

Where else courts name it

WA 9 (2012–2024) LA 6 (1993–2024) TX 5 (1979–2020) CA 5 (1995–2023) OH 3 (1999–2006) WY 2 (2003–2020) MI 2 (1995–2019) OK 2 (2013–2013)

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