case announcing a new rule in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2009 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Robinson v. City of Seattlered wash · 1992 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2009 2 sentences 2009We therefore held, “[Retroactive application of a principle in a case announcing a new rule precludes prospective application of the rule in any subsequently raised suit based upon the new rule.” Id. ¶17 Our holding in Robinson is in accord with the policies of many of our sister states that have recognized the inherent inequality of selective prospectivity. 2009Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beam Distilling, we abolished selective prospectivity altogether, declaring, “[O]nce this court has applied a rule retroactively to the parties in the case announcing a new rule, we will apply the new rule to all others not barred by procedural requirements.” Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 77 . ¶15 In Beam Distilling, the Court limited the application of Chevron Oil.	2	6
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgiared scotus · 1991 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1992–2004 2 sentences 2004See also Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34, 77 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992) (abolishing selective prospectivity in Washington and stating that "under Beam Distilling [ 501 U.S. 529 , 111 S.Ct. 2439 ], retroactive application of a principle in a case announcing a new rule precludes prospective application of the rule in any subsequently raised suit based upon the new rule. 2004See also Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34, 77 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992) (abolishing selective prospectivity in Washington and stating that "under Beam Distilling [ 501 U.S. 529 , 111 S.Ct. 2439 ], retroactive application of a principle in a case announcing a new rule precludes prospective application of the rule in any subsequently raised suit based upon the new rule.	1	3

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
Erwin & Erwin v. Brewer green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2004Such [selective prospectivity] would be unequal and unmindful of stare decisis as it treats similarly situated litigants unequally"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1028 , 113 S.Ct. 676 , 121 L.Ed.2d 598 (1992). 2004Such [selective prospectivity] would be unequal and unmindful of stare decisis as it treats similarly situated litigants unequally"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1028 , 113 S.Ct. 676 , 121 L.Ed.2d 598 (1992).	1	2004–2004
Moreland v. United States green scotus · 1992 1 sentence 2004Such [selective prospectivity] would be unequal and unmindful of stare decisis as it treats similarly situated litigants unequally"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1028 , 113 S.Ct. 676 , 121 L.Ed.2d 598 (1992).	1	2004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 7 (1992–2009) CO 4 (2024–2024) AL 2 (2005–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance