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 2 courts 2005–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lybbert v. Grant Countygreen2 sentences2007See also Lybbert, 141 Wash.2d at 29 , 1 P.3d 1124 . ¶ 16 The City contends that the first type of waiver does not apply here because admissions in a former action are not inconsistent with the denial of that admission in a later action, citing Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703 (1987). 2007Courts have concluded that a defendant waives an affirmative defense if “(1) assertion of the defense is inconsistent with defendant’s prior behavior or (2) the defendant has been dilatory in asserting the defense.” King, 146 Wn.2d at 424 ; see also Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d 29 . ¶16 The City contends that the first type of waiver does not apply here because admissions in a former action are not inconsistent with the denial of that admission in a later action, citing Mercer v. State, 48 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Mercer v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Lybbert, 141 Wash.2d at 29 , 1 P.3d 1124 . ¶ 16 The City contends that the first type of waiver does not apply here because admissions in a former action are not inconsistent with the denial of that admission in a later action, citing Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703 (1987). 2007Courts have concluded that a defendant waives an affirmative defense if “(1) assertion of the defense is inconsistent with defendant’s prior behavior or (2) the defendant has been dilatory in asserting the defense.” King, 146 Wn.2d at 424 ; see also Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d 29 . ¶16 The City contends that the first type of waiver does not apply here because admissions in a former action are not inconsistent with the denial of that admission in a later action, citing Mercer v. State, 48 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. Kramergreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., O'Connell, 73 Wash.2d 85 , 436 P.2d 786 (1968); Maleng v. King County Corr. 2005See, e.g., O’Connell, 73 Wn.2d 85 ; Maleng v. King County Corr. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
King v. Snohomish County
green
2 sentences2016King, 146 Wn.2d at 424 . 2007Courts have concluded that a defendant waives an affirmative defense if “(1) assertion of the defense is inconsistent with defendant’s prior behavior or (2) the defendant has been dilatory in asserting the defense.” King, 146 Wn.2d at 424 ; see also Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d 29 . ¶16 The City contends that the first type of waiver does not apply here because admissions in a former action are not inconsistent with the denial of that admission in a later action, citing Mercer v. State, 48 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2016 |
City of Tacoma v. Bishop
green
2 sentences2006Bishop, 82 Wash.App. at 858 , 920 P.2d 214 . 2006Bishop, 82 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
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.