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 1997–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freitag v. McGhiegreen2 sentences2008RCW 19.40.091; See Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash.2d 816, 820-21 , 947 P.2d 1186 (1997). 2008RCW 19.40.091; see Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wn.2d 816, 820-21 , 947 P.2d 1186 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
Freitag v. McGhiegreen2 sentences2008RCW 19.40.091; See Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash.2d 816, 820-21 , 947 P.2d 1186 (1997). 2008RCW 19.40.091; see Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wn.2d 816, 820-21 , 947 P.2d 1186 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Deskinsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68, 80 , 322 P.3d 780 (2014) (if court cannot provide effective relief, an issue is moot).10 Next, regarding successor liability, Stevens contends there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Alderwood Surgical is liable as a successor based on the fraudulent transfer exception. 11 To demonstrate fraud, a plaintiff must show “(1) representation of an existing fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by premature motion for revision. 2025See State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68, 80 , 322 P.3d 780 (2014) (if court cannot provide effective relief, an issue is moot).10 Next, regarding successor liability, Stevens contends there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Alderwood Surgical is liable as a successor based on the fraudulent transfer exception. 11 To demonstrate fraud, a plaintiff must show “(1) representation of an existing fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by premature motion for revision. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Avery v. Safeway Cab, Transfer & Storage Co.
green
2 sentences1998In Avery v. Safeway Cab, Transfer & Storage Co., 148 Kan. 321 , 80 P.2d 1099 (1938), the plaintiff was injured on March 17, 1935, by a taxicab owned and operated by Peoples Taxicab Company. 1998In Avery v. Safeway Cab, Transfer & Storage Co., 148 Kan. 321 , 80 P.2d 1099 (1938), the plaintiff was injured on March 17, 1935, by a taxicab owned and operated by Peoples Taxicab Company. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
McMaster v. Farmer
green
2 sentences1997The Court of Appeals construed RCW 19.40.091(a) in McMaster v. Farmer, 76 Wash.App. 464 , 886 P.2d 240 (1994), and held a fraudulent transfer claim must be commenced within one year of the discovery of the transfer and knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transfer is not required to initiate the running of the statute. 1997App. 464 , 886 P.2d 240 (1994), and held a fraudulent transfer claim must be commenced within one year of the discovery of the transfer and knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transfer is not required to initiate the running of the statute. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Grove v. Payne
green
1 sentence2021We acknowledged Spice’s fraudulent transfer claim in Spice III and held that “[b]ecause the Estate failed to controvert Spice’s evidence . . . taken in a light most favorable to Spice, a material issue of fact exists regarding the fraudulent transfer claim.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.
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.