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 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCleskey v. Zantred2 sentences2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 . [5] Of course, an inexcusable neglect standard necessarily implies that some failures to raise an issue in an earlier personal restraint petition may be excused. 2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 . 5 ¶ 21 Of course, an inexcusable neglect standard necessarily implies that some failures to raise an issue in an earlier personal restraint petition may be excused. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nepstad v. Beasley
green
2 sentences2006Nepstad, 77 Wash. App. at 467-68 , 892 P.2d 110 . ¶ 26 But in Nepstad , we ultimately held that the plaintiff's neglect was excusable and did not determine whether "inexcusable neglect" would actually apply in cases where the plaintiff attempts to correct misidentified defendants. 77 Wash.App. at 466-68 , 892 P.2d 110 . 2006Nepstad, 77 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
North Street Ass'n v. City of Olympia
red
2 sentences2006Ass'n v. Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 368 , 635 P.2d 721 (1981), "announced that the inexcusable neglect requirement applied to joinder of additional parties, but never stated that the requirement applied to cases of substitution to correct a mistaken identity," and that because Nepstad was a case of mistaken identity, inexcusable neglect should not in itself bar the relation back of the amendment. 2006App. at 467 . ¶25 Our analysis was that our Supreme Court in North Street Ass’n, 96 Wn.2d at 368 , “announced that the inexcusable neglect requirement applied to joinder of additional parties, but never stated that the requirement applied to cases of substitution to correct a mistaken identity” and that because Nepstad was a case of mistaken identity, inexcusable neglect should not in itself bar the relation back of the amendment. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Tellinghuisen v. King County Council
green
2 sentences2002S. Hollywood Hills, 101 Wn.2d at 77-78 ; Tellinghuisen v. King County Council, 103 Wn.2d 221, 223-24 , 691 P.2d 575 (1984) (per curiam). 2002S. Hollywood Hills, 101 Wn.2d at 77-78 ; Tellinghuisen v. King County Council, 103 Wn.2d 221, 223-24 , 691 P.2d 575 (1984) (per curiam). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Caruso v. Local Union No. 690
green
2 sentences2002In Caruso, 100 Wash.2d at 351 , 670 P.2d 240 , the court held that an amendment adding a new claim related back, though it was filed five years and four months after the original, and less than a month before trial. 2002In Caruso, 100 Wn.2d at 351 , the court held that an amendment adding a new claim related back, though it was filed five years and four months after the original, and less than a month before trial. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County
green
2 sentences2002S. Hollywood Hills, 101 Wash.2d at 77-78 , 677 P.2d 114 ; Tellinghuisen v. King County Council, 103 Wash.2d 221, 223-24 , 691 P.2d 575 (1984) (per curiam). 2002S. Hollywood Hills, 101 Wn.2d at 77-78 ; Tellinghuisen v. King County Council, 103 Wn.2d 221, 223-24 , 691 P.2d 575 (1984) (per curiam). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Beal v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2014Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle. 134 Wn.2d 769 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998). 2014Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle. 134 Wn.2d 769 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Miller v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2014Id.; Miller v. Campbell, 164 Wn.2d 529 , 192 P.3d 352 (2008). 2014Id.; Miller v. Campbell, 164 Wn.2d 529 , 192 P.3d 352 (2008). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Townsend v. Sain
red
2 sentences2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. 2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sanders v. United States
green
2 sentences2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. 2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
red
2 sentences2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. 2004McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by, Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992))). [6] In clarifying that an inexcusable neglect standard applies rather than deliberate withholding, we emphasize that an abuse of the writ may be found where there is no ill intent or improper pursuit of goals such as prolonging postconviction review through piecemeal argument. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stansfield v. Douglas County
green
1 sentence2002Stansfield II, 107 Wash.App. at 32, 26 P.3d 935 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.