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.
7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daugert v. Pappasgreen2 sentences2018Rather, the jury’s task is to determine what a reasonable judge or fact finder would have done.”); See also Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wn.2d 254, 257 , 704 P.2d 600 (1985) (“[W]hen an attorney makes an error during a trial, the causation issue in the 13 Thomsen asserts that Bianchi erred by not insisting that the dispute in Butler be submitted to arbitration before the White case mediator, as allowed in the White Release. 2018Rather, the jury’s task is to determine what a reasonable judge or fact finder would have done.”); See also Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wn.2d 254, 257 , 704 P.2d 600 (1985) (“[W]hen an attorney makes an error during a trial, the causation issue in the 13 Thomsen asserts that Bianchi erred by not insisting that the dispute in Butler be submitted to arbitration before the White case mediator, as allowed in the White Release. | 3 | 5 |
Seventh Elect Church v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha 2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha | 1 | 1 |
cluster 237667green1 sentence2018Comm'n, 226 F.2d 501, 520 (6th Cir. 1955))); Seattle Nw. | 1 | 1 |
Dike v. Dikegreen2 sentences2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha 2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aubin v. Barton
green
1 sentence2018App. 592, 608 , 98 P.3d 126 (2004). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ferguson v. Law Office of Brian J. Waid
neutral
1 sentence2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State Of Washington v. Earl Ronald Rogers
neutral
1 sentence2018App. 2d 1, 10, 414 P.3d 1143 (2018)(citing Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 102 Wn.2d 527, 536-37 , 688 P.2d 506 (1984)("When an attorney makes a claim of privilege in good faith, the proper course is for the trial court to stay all sanctions for contempt pending appellate review of the issue.")), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1032 (2018); see Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 16 , 448 P.2d 490 (1968)("An attorney is entitled to consideration of a claimed privilege not to disclose information which he honestly regards as confidential and should not stand in danger of imprisonment for asserting wha | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Aubin v. Barton
green
1 sentence2018When an attorney makes an error during litigation, the plaintiff must prove "the trial-within- the-trial." Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.