7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences2016Allen, 118 Wn.2d at 760 . ¶34 The essential elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) the existence of a duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) resulting injury, and (4) a proximate cause between the alleged breach and resulting injury. 2016Allen, 118 Wn.2d at 760 . 10 No. 73206-4-1/11 The essential elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) the existence of a duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) resulting injury, and (4) a proximate cause between the alleged breach and resulting injury. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern
green
1 sentence2018Allen, 118 Wn.2d at 760 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hermann v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993App. 626, 630 , 564 P.2d 817 (1977) (whether the evidence supports plaintiff's claim that the fiduciary relationship was a continuing one, so that the statute of limitation is tolled until the relationship is terminated, is a question for the trier of fact). 12 Although the trial court entered no conclusions of law determining the applicability of the discovery rule, finding of fact 44 states: At least until notice of the termination of the Gillespie family's fiduciary relationship with the Bank in late November of 1987, the Gillespie family members neither knew nor should they reasonably have | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co.
green
2 sentences1989Statutes of repose are designed to avoid placing undue burdens on potential defendants by limiting the applicability of the discovery rule; liability attaches only for those causes of action that accrue within a certain period of time after the defendant has acted. [3] See Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wn.2d 215 , 222 & n. 2, 543 P.2d 338 (1975); RCW 4.16.310. 1989Statutes of repose are designed to avoid placing undue burdens on potential defendants by limiting the applicability of the discovery rule; liability attaches only for those causes of action that accrue within a certain period of time after the defendant has acted. [3] See Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wn.2d 215 , 222 & n. 2, 543 P.2d 338 (1975); RCW 4.16.310. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Frohs v. Greene
green
1 sentence1969If the discovery rule laid down in Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660 , 453 P.2d 631 (1969) is correct then Frohs v. Greene, supra, points out with respect to an Oregon statute of limitations similar to our own: On a theoretical basis it is impossible to justify the applicability of the discovery rule to one kind of malpractice and not to another. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Ruth v. Dight
red
2 sentences1969If the discovery rule laid down in Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660 , 453 P.2d 631 (1969) is correct then Frohs v. Greene, supra, points out with respect to an Oregon statute of limitations similar to our own: On a theoretical basis it is impossible to justify the applicability of the discovery rule to one kind of malpractice and not to another. 1969If the discovery rule laid down in Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660 , 453 P.2d 631 (1969) is correct then Frohs v. Greene, supra, points out with respect to an Oregon statute of limitations similar to our own: On a theoretical basis it is impossible to justify the applicability of the discovery rule to one kind of malpractice and not to another. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.