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.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baldwin v. Albertigreen2 sentences1965See Baldwin v. Alberti, 58 Wn.2d 243 , 362 P.2d 258 (1961). 1965See Baldwin v. Alberti, 58 Wn.2d 243 , 362 P.2d 258 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carpenter v. Barry
neutral
2 sentences1911This view is supported in principle by Carpenter v. Barry, 26 Wash. 255 , 66 Pac. 393 , where the court said: “The appellants assign as error the action of the court in rendering judgment in excess of the verdict. 1911This view is supported in principle by Carpenter v. Barry, 26 Wash. 255 , 66 Pac. 393 , where the court said: “The appellants assign as error the action of the court in rendering judgment in excess of the verdict. | 2 | 1903–1911 |
Apostolis v. City of Seattle
green
1 sentence2025A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” Apostolis v. City of Seattle, 101 Wn. App. 300, 303 , 3 P.3d 198 (2000) (footnotes omitted). 3 A The appellants assign error to the superior court’s finding that they did not serve their trial de novo request on Erica. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Swenson v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1957On the other hand, the appellant's position is supported by Swenson v. Swenson, 241 Mo. App. 21 , 227 S.W. (2d) 103 , 20 A.L.R. (2d) 1409. [6] "The appellants assign as error the entry of a judgment having an obvious omission. 1957On the other hand, the appellant's position is supported by Swenson v. Swenson, 241 Mo. App. 21 , 227 S.W. (2d) 103 , 20 A.L.R. (2d) 1409. [6] "The appellants assign as error the entry of a judgment having an obvious omission. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Platts v. Arney
green
1 sentence1955This matter has been decided in the case of Platts v. Arney, ante p. 122, 278 P. (2d) 657 (1955), where we said: “The right to costs is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive right. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Hamilton v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1943The statement that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, may be made at any time, whether in the superior court or in this court, is so often made that we desire to call attention to what was said in the case of Hamilton v. Johnson, 137 Wash. 92 , 241 Pac. 672 : “The appellants assign error on the refusal of the court to sustain their challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint. 1943The statement that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, may be made at any time, whether in the superior court or in this court, is so often made that we desire to call attention to what was said in the case of Hamilton v. Johnson, 137 Wash. 92 , 241 Pac. 672 : “The appellants assign error on the refusal of the court to sustain their challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Keseleff v. Sunset Highway Motor Freight Co.
green
2 sentences1936Since the trial below, this court has passed upon the question thus raised in the case of Keseleff v. Sunset Highway Motor Freight Co. , 187 Wn. 642 , 60 P.2d 720 , where, under like facts and conditions, we *Page 262 held that the insurance company could not be joined as a defendant in an action against the tort feasor whom it had insured. 1936Since the trial below, this court has passed upon the question thus raised in the case of Keseleff v. Sunset Highway Motor Freight Co. , 187 Wn. 642 , 60 P.2d 720 , where, under like facts and conditions, we *Page 262 held that the insurance company could not be joined as a defendant in an action against the tort feasor whom it had insured. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.