Connecticut rule (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Connecticut rule in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Reardon v. Shimelman green
conn · 1925
2 sentences

2001Contrary to the Massachusetts rule, the Connecticut rule announced in Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 A. 705 (1925) placed the burden on the landowner: The duty of the landlord being to exercise reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of defective or dangerous conditions in the common approaches, the fact that a particular danger arose from the fall of snow or the freezing of ice can afford no ground of distinction.

2001Contrary to the Massachusetts rule, the Connecticut rule announced in Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 A. 705 (1925) placed the burden on the landowner: The duty of the landlord being to exercise reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of defective or dangerous conditions in the common approaches, the fact that a particular danger arose from the fall of snow or the freezing of ice can afford no ground of distinction.

51975–2001
State v. Melton green
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2026It is true that illness on the part of defense counsel, as 6 was the case in No. 86159-0-I/7 Melton, is a factual difference from illness of the prosecutor in this case. 97 Wn.

2025It is true that illness on the part of defense counsel, as was the case in 6 No. 86159-0-I/7 Melton, is a factual difference from illness of the prosecutor in this case. 97 Wn.

22025–2026
Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. green
mass · 1883
2 sentences

2001The Massachusetts rule, otherwise known as the “natural accumulation rule,” stems from the case of Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 134 Mass. 357 (1883).

2001The Massachusetts rule, otherwise known as the “natural accumulation rule,” stems from the case of Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 134 Mass. 357 (1883).

22001–2001
Geise v. Lee green
wash · 1975
2 sentences

2001Adoption of the Connecticut rule stemmed from “judicial recognition of changing conditions within the ever expanding boundaries of the landlord-tenant relationship.” Geise, 84 Wn.2d at 869 .

2001Adoption of the Connecticut rule stemmed from “judicial recognition of changing conditions within the ever expanding boundaries of the landlord-tenant relationship.” Geise, 84 Wn.2d at 869 .

22001–2001
McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp. green
wash · 1971
2 sentences

1975The foregoing cases and their progeny, were implicitly adopted by this court in McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp., 79 Wn.2d 443 , 486 P.2d 1093 (1971).

1975The foregoing cases and their progeny, were implicitly adopted by this court in McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp., 79 Wn.2d 443 , 486 P.2d 1093 (1971).

11975–1975
Langley Park Apartments, SEC. H., Inc. v. Lund green
md · 1964
2 sentences

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

11975–1975
Strong v. Shefveland green
minn · 1957
2 sentences

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

11975–1975
Massor v. Yates green
or · 1931
2 sentences

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

1975H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402 , 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Strong v. Shefveland, 249 Minn. 59 , 81 N.W.2d 247 (1957) (applying the Connecticut rule to a trailer park situation); and Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931).

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

CT 100 (1917–2025) MA 9 (1957–2011) PA 8 (1898–2006) WA 7 (1975–2026) MD 6 (1962–2013) IL 5 (1955–1984) DE 4 (1959–1967) NY 4 (1899–1998) NJ 3 (1960–1993) GA 3 (1902–1998) AZ 3 (1963–1971) VT 2 (1996–1998) TX 2 (1978–2015) LA 2 (1984–1991) ND 2 (1967–2005) MN 2 (1939–1978) FL 2 (1958–1976)

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