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 1921–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. Hockettgreen2 sentences2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case 2015In Watson , the court considered an *506 instruction that read, “ ‘A physician or surgeon is not liable for an honest error of judgment....'" Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 164 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 160 n.4, 588 P.2d 734 (1978)). | 1 | 2 |
Veliz v. American Hosp., Inc.green1 sentence1986See also Veliz v. American Hosp., Inc., 414 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case 2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case | 6 | 1986–2026 |
Miller v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2024App. 272, 280 , 522 P.2d 852 (1974) (emphasis added), aff’d, 85 Wn.2d 151 , 530 P.2d 334 (1975). 2024In 1974, we approved of a jury instruction that read, “‘[a] physician is not liable for an honest error of judgment if, in arriving at that judgment, the physician exercised reasonable care and skill, within the standard of care he was obliged to follow.’” Miller v. Kennedy, 11 Wn. | 2 | 1986–2024 |
Versteeg v. Mowery
green
2 sentences2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case 2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Richison v. Nunn
green
2 sentences2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case 2024Notably, the court instructed that, “[i]n the absence of proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level 38 No. 85208-6-I/39 of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg v. Mowery, 72 Wn.2d 754, 755 , 435 P.2d 540 (1967); Richison v. Nunn, 57 Wn.2d 1, 4-5 , 340 P.2d 793 (1959)).18 Turning to the challenged instruction, the court ruled that [t]he “error of judgment” instruction unanimously upheld by this court in Miller[ v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)], and also proposed by Dr. Hockett in this case | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Miller v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2024App. 272, 280 , 522 P.2d 852 (1974) (emphasis added), aff’d, 85 Wn.2d 151 , 530 P.2d 334 (1975). 2024App. 272, 280 , 522 P.2d 852 (1974) (emphasis added), aff’d, 85 Wn.2d 151 , 530 P.2d 334 (1975). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Somer v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1986In Somer v. Johnson, 704 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1983), the court held the instruction inadmissible since it was conceivable the jury could find the doctor failed to exercise the proper standard of care and yet excuse liability because the failure was due to an honest error in judgment. 1986In Somer v. Johnson, 704 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1983), the court held the instruction inadmissible since it was conceivable the jury could find the doctor failed to exercise the proper standard of care and yet excuse liability because the failure was due to an honest error in judgment. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
American Export Door Corp. v. John A. Gauger Co.
neutral
1 sentence1947We believe that, generally speaking, *632 where the statutes or the decisions of the courts require red lights as a warning of danger on any object in the highway and such lights are not present, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the driver at night should have seen the obstruction, notwithstanding the absence of red lights.” In the case of Schouten v. Jacobs, 26 Wn. (2d) 798, 175 P. (2d) 627 , we stated: “It seems to us the above statements of appellant and the cases cited demonstrate that there is no established test by which it can always be determined whether or not the dr | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Frowd v. Marchbank
green
1 sentence1947We believe that, generally speaking, *632 where the statutes or the decisions of the courts require red lights as a warning of danger on any object in the highway and such lights are not present, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the driver at night should have seen the obstruction, notwithstanding the absence of red lights.” In the case of Schouten v. Jacobs, 26 Wn. (2d) 798, 175 P. (2d) 627 , we stated: “It seems to us the above statements of appellant and the cases cited demonstrate that there is no established test by which it can always be determined whether or not the dr | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Schouten v. Jacobs
neutral
1 sentence1947We believe that, generally speaking, *632 where the statutes or the decisions of the courts require red lights as a warning of danger on any object in the highway and such lights are not present, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the driver at night should have seen the obstruction, notwithstanding the absence of red lights.” In the case of Schouten v. Jacobs, 26 Wn. (2d) 798, 175 P. (2d) 627 , we stated: “It seems to us the above statements of appellant and the cases cited demonstrate that there is no established test by which it can always be determined whether or not the dr | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Hanson v. Soderberg
neutral
2 sentences1921All of the other points raised by appellant are decided against him in Hanson v. Soderberg, 105 Wash. 255 , 177 Pac. 827 . 1921All of the other points raised by appellant are decided against him in Hanson v. Soderberg, 105 Wash. 255 , 177 Pac. 827 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.