8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carpenter v. Folkertsgreen2 sentences2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM 2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Compare Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarland
green
2 sentences2008That sort of legislative silence following the court’s interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wn.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶13 We find that Young controls. 2008That sort of legislative silence following the court's interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wash.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wash.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶ 13 We find that Young controls. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
1000 Friends v. McFarland
green
2 sentences2008That sort of legislative silence following the court’s interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wn.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶13 We find that Young controls. 2008That sort of legislative silence following the court's interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wash.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wash.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶ 13 We find that Young controls. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Coe
green
2 sentences2008That sort of legislative silence following the court’s interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wn.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶13 We find that Young controls. 2008That sort of legislative silence following the court’s interpretation of a statute is at least some evidence of legislative approval. 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 181 , 149 P.3d 616 (2006) (citing State v. Coe, 109 Wn.2d 832, 846 , 750 P.2d 208 (1988)). ¶13 We find that Young controls. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Feigenbaum v. Brink
green
2 sentences2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM 2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Barnett v. Buchan Baking Company
green
2 sentences2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM 2007Thus, they implicate only the statute of fraud's temporal requirement. [3] Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co., 108 Wash.2d 405 , 738 P.2d 1056 (1987) (holding specific performance was appropriate to enforce an option to purchase contained in a lease); Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 131 , 401 P.2d 642 (1965) (holding "specific performance will lie to enforce the landlord's duty to repair"); Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wash.App. 73, 76 , 627 P.2d 559 (1981) ("It is accepted in Washington that a lease containing a lessee's option to purchase is enforceable by specific performance."); see also 71 AM | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In re the Detention of Thorell
green
1 sentence2021But because WAC 381-90-150 does not contain a temporal requirement and Jackson committed an infraction only six months before his ISRB hearing, his argument is not compelling. 22In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 753 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003); see Resp’t’s Br. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Detention of Thorell
green
1 sentence2021But because WAC 381-90-150 does not contain a temporal requirement and Jackson committed an infraction only six months before his ISRB hearing, his argument is not compelling. 22In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 753 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003); see Resp’t’s Br. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Berrocal v. Fernandez
green
1 sentence2021It finds it “hard to believe” that the legislature intended to impose this temporal requirement, go “on to describe the substantive requirements of th[e] notice, and then return[] to the topic of timing.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Burkett v. Beaulieu Group, LLC
green
1 sentence2013It merely means the fitness certification must “state that the [employee] had the ability to return to work at [the] time [of the statement].” Burkett, 382 F. Supp. 2d at 1381 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.