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 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sorrentino v. Internal Revenue Servicegreen2 sentences2008Id. at 1195 (invoking the mailbox rule’s presumption of receipt requires independent proof of a postmark or evidence other than the taxpayer’s self-serving testimony as to actual mailing). 2008Id. at 1195 (invoking the mailbox rule's presumption of receipt requires independent proof of a postmark or evidence other than the taxpayer's self-serving testimony as to actual mailing). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Carlstadgreen2 sentences2003Carlstad, 114 Wn. 2003Id. at 456. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houston v. Lack
green
2 sentences2003ANALYSIS A. Federal Mailbox Rule Carlstad and McLean ask us to adopt a mailbox rule similar to that created by the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S. Ct. 2379 , 101 L. 2003ANALYSIS A. Federal Mailbox Rule Carlstad and McLean ask us to adopt a mailbox rule similar to that created by the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S. Ct. 2379 , 101 L. | 3 | 2002–2003 |
Haag v. State
green
2 sentences2002App. at 827 (citing Haag, 591 So. 2d at 617 ). 4 Carlstad urges this court to follow Houston and Hurt, to apply the mailbox rule in his case, and to hold that his personal restraint petition was timely filed because it was deposited with prison authorities for mailing five days before the one-year statutory deadline for filing. 2001Id. at 617 . | 3 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2003State v. Robinson, 104 Wn. 2003Robinson, 104 Wn. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Hurt
green
2 sentences2003State v. Hurt, 107 Wash.App. 816 , 27 P.3d 1276 (2001). 2003State v. Hurt, 107 Wn. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Olson v. the Bon, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025App. 627, 634 , 183 P.3d 359 (2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Olson v. Bon, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Mailbox Rule “The mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time.” Olson v. The Bon, Inc., 144 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hurt
green
1 sentence2003State v. Hurt, 107 Wash.App. 816 , 27 P.3d 1276 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Littlefair
green
1 sentence2003State v. Littlefair, 112 Wash.App. 749, 760 , 51 P.3d 116 (2002), review denied 149 Wash.2d 1020 , 72 P.3d 761 (2003) (noting that at least three Court of Appeals criminal cases have applied equitable tolling). *592 Both Carlstad and McLean seek equitable tolling as an alternative to adoption of the mailbox rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2003State v. Robinson, 104 Wash.App. 657 , 17 P.3d 653 (2001). 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Littlefair
green
1 sentence2003State v. Littlefair, 112 Wash.App. 749, 760 , 51 P.3d 116 (2002), review denied 149 Wash.2d 1020 , 72 P.3d 761 (2003) (noting that at least three Court of Appeals criminal cases have applied equitable tolling). *592 Both Carlstad and McLean seek equitable tolling as an alternative to adoption of the mailbox rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.