Stute rule in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2012 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 (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Combes v. Snowgreen wash · 1960 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. 56 Wn.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. 56 Wn.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960).	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc. green wash · 1990 2 sentences 2012Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 464 , 788 P.2d 545 . ¶ 57 A trial court may not consider inadmissible evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. 2012Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 464 , 788 P.2d 545 . ¶ 57 A trial court may not consider inadmissible evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.	3	2012–2012
Kamla v. the Space Needle Corporation green wash · 2002 2 sentences 2011Kamla, 147 Wash.2d at 125 , 52 P.3d 472 . ¶ 19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port's control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. [2] The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an "employer" and Afoa is not an "employee" as those terms are defined under WISHA. 2011Kamla, 147 Wash.2d at 125 , 52 P.3d 472 . ¶ 19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port's control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. [2] The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an "employer" and Afoa is not an "employee" as those terms are defined under WISHA.	2	2011–2011
Doss v. ITT Rayonier, Inc. green washctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2002The appellate courts extended the Stute rule to jobsite owners in Doss v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 60 Wn. 2002The appellate courts extended the Stute rule to jobsite owners in Doss v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 60 Wn.	2	2002–2002
Weinert v. Bronco National Co. green washctapp · 1990 2 sentences 2002The Weinert court acknowledged Bronco was an owner/developer rather than a general contractor, but employed the Stute rule because “[t]he owner/developer’s position [was] so comparable to that of the general contractor in Stute that the reasons for the holding in Stute [applied].” Weinert, 58 Wn. 2002The Weinert court acknowledged Bronco was an owner/developer rather than a general contractor, but employed the Stute rule because “[t]he owner/developer’s position [was] so comparable to that of the general contractor in Stute that the reasons for the holding in Stute [applied].” Weinert, 58 Wn.	2	2002–2002
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp. green wash · 2002 2 sentences 2011Kamla, 147 Wash.2d at 125 , 52 P.3d 472 . ¶ 19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port's control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. [2] The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an "employer" and Afoa is not an "employee" as those terms are defined under WISHA. 2011Kamla, 147 Wash.2d at 125 , 52 P.3d 472 . ¶ 19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port's control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. [2] The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an "employer" and Afoa is not an "employee" as those terms are defined under WISHA.	1	2011–2011
State v. WASAGESHIK green wash · 2010 2 sentences 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em	1	2011–2011
Neil v. NWCC INVESTMENTS V, LLC green washctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em	1	2011–2011
Rothwell v. NINE MILE FALLS SCHOOL DIST. green wash · 2010 2 sentences 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em 2011App. 119, 127 , 229 P.3d 837 (Stute’s duty “does not extend to owners that do not retain the right to control the manner in which the independent contractor and its employees perform their work.”), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1018 , 238 P.3d 502 (2010); Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 125 . ¶[19 Afoa argues that, as was the case with the businesses in Weinert and Doss , the Port’s control and authority is sufficiently analogous to that of a general contractor to justify application of the Stute rule. 2 The Port responds that the Stute rule does not apply because it is not an “employer” and Afoa is not an “em	1	2011–2011
Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley green wash · 1988 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Stansfield v. Douglas County green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Uni-Com Northwest, Ltd. v. Argus Publishing Co. green washctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc. green wash · 1933 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., Inc. green washctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Stansfield v. Douglas County green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co. green washctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com 2010Both cases simply apply the Stute rule without discussing the CRA. [32] 56 Wash.2d 122 , 351 P.2d 419 (1960). [33] Combes, 56 Wash.2d at 123, 126 , 351 P.2d 419 . [34] Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash.App. 227 , 236-37, 103 P.3d 1256 (2005) (quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc., 171 Wash. 507, 510 , 18 P.2d 857 (1933), overruled on other grounds by Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wash.2d 695 , 756 P.2d 717 (1988)). [35] Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash.App. 1, 18 , 27 P.3d 205 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Uni-Com	1	2010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.060 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.020 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 51.04.010 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check