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 1935–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Calegargreen1 sentence2020But this line of reasoning was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Hardy: “[t]he proper inquiry under ER 609(a)(1) is not whether the prior conviction shows a ‘non-law- abiding character’ but whether it shows the witness is not truthful.” 133 Wn.2d at 708; see also Calegar, 133 Wn.2d at 725-27 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kerr
green
2 sentences1998Thus, for example, in In re Discipline of Kerr, 86 Wn.2d 655 , 548 P.2d 297 (1976) an attorney was disciplined for attempted subornation of perjury as an act of moral turpitude, which indeed reflects a disregard for the rule of law. 1998Thus, for example, in In re Discipline of Kerr, 86 Wn.2d 655 , 548 P.2d 297 (1976) an attorney was disciplined for attempted subornation of perjury as an act of moral turpitude, which indeed reflects a disregard for the rule of law. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
State v. McCrorey
green
2 sentences1998State v. McCrorey, 70 Wash.App. 103 , 851 P.2d 1234 (1993) (Div. I). 1998State v. McCrorey, 70 Wn. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Haley v. Medical Disciplinary Board
green
2 sentences1998The majority, however, ignores that part of the text of RLD 1.1 which expressly references “disregard for the rule of law.” And it abandons our rules altogether by following a medical discipline case, Haley v. Medical Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 742 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991), which rests on a rule wholly inapplicable even on its face to the legal profession. 1998The majority, however, ignores that part of the text of RLD 1.1 which expressly references “disregard for the rule of law.” And it abandons our rules altogether by following a medical discipline case, Haley v. Medical Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 742 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991), which rests on a rule wholly inapplicable even on its face to the legal profession. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
In re C.V.
neutral
2 sentences2022The total disregard standard’s concern is that “a person with mental health needs serious enough to require involuntary treatment should not 7 be released merely because some statutory requirements have not been satisfied.” Id. 2022In re Det. of C.V., 5 Wn. App. 2d 814 , 823, 428 P.3d 407 (2018). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase
green
2 sentences1936We held in Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351 , 289 Pac. 536 , 290 Pac. 697 , 71 A. L. 1936We held in Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351 , 289 Pac. 536 , 290 Pac. 697 , 71 A. L. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co.
green
1 sentence1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank
green
2 sentences1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . 1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Haines v. Fewkes
green
1 sentence1935Respondents seem to place reliance upon our cases of Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank, 122 Wash. 494 , 210 Pac. 947 , 213 Pac. 490 , and Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 129 Wash. 253 , 224 Pac. 673 ; but those cases both rest upon the disregard and violation by the bank of explicit instructions, and therefore they are not at all in point. *268 The guardian, though cashier of the bank, acted wholly outside the scope of his authority as cashier and solely for his individual advantage in withdrawing the money, and therefore could not, by that act, hind the | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Bank of Occoquan, Inc. v. Bushey
neutral
2 sentences1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . 1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
American Surety Company v. Pauly
green
2 sentences1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . 1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank
neutral
2 sentences1935Respondents seem to place reliance upon our cases of Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank, 122 Wash. 494 , 210 Pac. 947 , 213 Pac. 490 , and Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 129 Wash. 253 , 224 Pac. 673 ; but those cases both rest upon the disregard and violation by the bank of explicit instructions, and therefore they are not at all in point. *268 The guardian, though cashier of the bank, acted wholly outside the scope of his authority as cashier and solely for his individual advantage in withdrawing the money, and therefore could not, by that act, hind the 1935Respondents seem to place reliance upon our cases of Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank, 122 Wash. 494 , 210 Pac. 947 , 213 Pac. 490 , and Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 129 Wash. 253 , 224 Pac. 673 ; but those cases both rest upon the disregard and violation by the bank of explicit instructions, and therefore they are not at all in point. *268 The guardian, though cashier of the bank, acted wholly outside the scope of his authority as cashier and solely for his individual advantage in withdrawing the money, and therefore could not, by that act, hind the | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle
green
2 sentences1935Respondents seem to place reliance upon our cases of Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank, 122 Wash. 494 , 210 Pac. 947 , 213 Pac. 490 , and Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 129 Wash. 253 , 224 Pac. 673 ; but those cases both rest upon the disregard and violation by the bank of explicit instructions, and therefore they are not at all in point. *268 The guardian, though cashier of the bank, acted wholly outside the scope of his authority as cashier and solely for his individual advantage in withdrawing the money, and therefore could not, by that act, hind the 1935Respondents seem to place reliance upon our cases of Rensselaer Valve Co. v. Union National Bank, 122 Wash. 494 , 210 Pac. 947 , 213 Pac. 490 , and Rensselaer Valve Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 129 Wash. 253 , 224 Pac. 673 ; but those cases both rest upon the disregard and violation by the bank of explicit instructions, and therefore they are not at all in point. *268 The guardian, though cashier of the bank, acted wholly outside the scope of his authority as cashier and solely for his individual advantage in withdrawing the money, and therefore could not, by that act, hind the | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Knobelock v. Germania Savings Bank
neutral
1 sentence1935Knobeloch v. Germania Savings Bank, 50 S. C. 259, 27 S. E. 962 ; Bank of Occoquan v. Bushey, 156 Va. 25 , 157 S. E. 764; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133 , 18 S. Ct. 552 ; Southern Trust & Commerce Bank v. San Diego Savings Bank, 60 Cal. App. 215 , 212 Pac. 385 ; Thoms on-Houston Electric Co. v. Capitol Electric Co., 65 Fed. 341 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.