voluntary payment doctrine in Washington

2011Op. at 3-4) (citing Smith v. Prime Cable of Chi., 276 Ill.App.3d 843 , 658 N.E.2d 1325 , 213 Ill.Dec. 304 (1995)).

2011Op. at 3-4) (citing Smith v. Prime Cable of Chi., 276 Ill.App.3d 843 , 658 N.E.2d 1325 , 213 Ill.Dec. 304 (1995)).

2011This is only one example. ¶ 18 The Court of Appeals dismissed the trial court's concerns in part because it determined that "extrinsic evidence" "will not be necessary here because these consumers entered into a standardized contract." Schnall, 139 Wash.App. at 299-300 , 161 P.3d 395 .

2011This is only one example. ¶18 The Court of Appeals dismissed the trial court’s concerns in part because it determined that “extrinsic evidence” “will not be necessary here because these consumers entered into a standardized contract.” Schnall, 139 Wn.

2011This is only one example. ¶ 18 The Court of Appeals dismissed the trial court's concerns in part because it determined that "extrinsic evidence" "will not be necessary here because these consumers entered into a standardized contract." Schnall, 139 Wash.App. at 299-300 , 161 P.3d 395 .

2010This is only one example. ¶ 18 The Court of Appeals dismissed the trial court's concerns in part because it determined that "extrinsic evidence" "will not be necessary here because these consumers entered into a standardized contract." Schnall, 139 Wash.App. at 299-300 , 161 P.3d 395 .

2008Baptist Theological Seminary, 356 N.W.2d 785 , described in note 100, supra. The reporter for the Restatement (Third) has even gone so far as to characterize the voluntary payment doctrine as “fallacious” when used to defeat recovery of an illegally collected tax.

2008Baptist Theological Seminary v. Entm't Commc'ns, Inc., 356 N.W.2d 785 (Minn.App. 1984), described in note 105, supra. The Reporter for the Restatement (Third) has even gone so far as to characterize the voluntary payment doctrine as "fallacious" when used to defeat recovery of an illegally collected tax.

2007See, e.g., Hawkinson v. Conniff, 53 Wn.2d 454, 459-60, 334 P.2d 540 (1959); Shields v. Schorno, 51 Wn.2d 737, 739 , 321 P.2d 905 (1958); Speckert, 6 Wn.2d at 40 ; Maxwell v. Provident Mut.

2007See, e.g., Hawkinson v. Conniff, 53 Wn.2d 454, 459-60, 334 P.2d 540 (1959); Shields v. Schorno, 51 Wn.2d 737, 739 , 321 P.2d 905 (1958); Speckert, 6 Wn.2d at 40 ; Maxwell v. Provident Mut.

2007Is Indoor Billboard’s claim barred by the voluntary payment doctrine? ¶61 As an affirmative defense to Indoor Billboard’s CPA claim, Integra relies on the voluntary payment doctrine set out in a 1940 case that stated, “ ‘money voluntarily paid under a claim of right to the payment, and with full knowledge of the facts by the person making the payment, cannot be recovered back on the ground that the claim was illegal, or that there was no liability to pay in the first instance.’ ” Speckert v. Bunker Hill Ariz. Mining Co., 6 Wn.2d 39, 52 , 106 P.2d 602 (1940) (quoting 21 Ruling Case Law 141-42 (

2007Is Indoor Billboard’s claim barred by the voluntary payment doctrine? ¶61 As an affirmative defense to Indoor Billboard’s CPA claim, Integra relies on the voluntary payment doctrine set out in a 1940 case that stated, “ ‘money voluntarily paid under a claim of right to the payment, and with full knowledge of the facts by the person making the payment, cannot be recovered back on the ground that the claim was illegal, or that there was no liability to pay in the first instance.’ ” Speckert v. Bunker Hill Ariz. Mining Co., 6 Wn.2d 39, 52 , 106 P.2d 602 (1940) (quoting 21 Ruling Case Law 141-42 (

2021App. 848, 851 , 809 P.2d 752 (1991), aff'd, 118 Wn.2d 577 , 826 P.2d 147 (1992).

2021App. 848, 851 , 809 P.2d 752 (1991), aff'd, 118 Wn.2d 577 , 826 P.2d 147 (1992).

2021The voluntary payment doctrine states that “money voluntarily paid under a claim of right to the payment, and with knowledge by the payor of the facts on which the claim is based, cannot be recovered on the ground that the claim was illegal, or that there was no liability to pay in the first instance.” Hawkinson v. 9 No. 81698-5-I/10 Conniff, 53 Wn.2d 454, 458 , 334 P.2d 540 (1959). “[W]hen a payor sues for the restitution of an allegedly involuntary payment, the essential elements are (1) that payment was made, (2) that it was made involuntarily, and (3) that the payee would be unjustly enric

2021The voluntary payment doctrine states that “money voluntarily paid under a claim of right to the payment, and with knowledge by the payor of the facts on which the claim is based, cannot be recovered on the ground that the claim was illegal, or that there was no liability to pay in the first instance.” Hawkinson v. 9 No. 81698-5-I/10 Conniff, 53 Wn.2d 454, 458 , 334 P.2d 540 (1959). “[W]hen a payor sues for the restitution of an allegedly involuntary payment, the essential elements are (1) that payment was made, (2) that it was made involuntarily, and (3) that the payee would be unjustly enric

2007Robinson, 106 Wash.App. at 122 , 22 P.3d 818 . *24 ¶ 65 We agree with Indoor Billboard that the voluntary payment doctrine is inappropriate as an affirmative defense in the CPA context, as a matter of law, because we construe the CPA liberally in favor of plaintiffs.

2007Robinson, 106 Wash.App. at 122 , 22 P.3d 818 . *24 ¶ 65 We agree with Indoor Billboard that the voluntary payment doctrine is inappropriate as an affirmative defense in the CPA context, as a matter of law, because we construe the CPA liberally in favor of plaintiffs.