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 1920–1983 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. N. A. Degerstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation, and Bower MacHinery Company, Inc.green1 sentence1978Degerstrom, Inc., 408 F.2d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1969): The critical factual inquiry in determining whether the loaned-servant doctrine should be applied is the location of the power to control the servant. | 1 | 1 |
Olsen v. Venessgreen1 sentence1942See, also, Olson v. Veness, 105 Wash. 599 , 178 Pac. 822 ; Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wash. 444 , 188 Pac. 517 ; Walter v. Everett School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mapfre Praico v. Estado Libre Asociado
neutral
2 sentences1971Our Supreme Court, in Ackerman v. Terpsma, supra at 212, explained the doctrine by quoting with approval the general rule announced in Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wash. 444, 448 , 188 P. 517 (1920): “. . . 1941In the case of Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wash. 444 , 188 Pac. 517 , this court, in discussing the loaned servant doctrine, said: “It is, of course, well settled law that one who is in the general employ and pay of one person may be loaned, or hired, by his employer to another, and when he undertakes to do the work of the other he becomes *497 the servant of such other, to perform the particular transaction. . . . | 4 | 1941–1971 |
Macale v. Lynch
green
2 sentences1971Our Supreme Court, in Ackerman v. Terpsma, supra at 212, explained the doctrine by quoting with approval the general rule announced in Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wash. 444, 448 , 188 P. 517 (1920): “. . . 1941In the case of Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wash. 444 , 188 Pac. 517 , this court, in discussing the loaned servant doctrine, said: “It is, of course, well settled law that one who is in the general employ and pay of one person may be loaned, or hired, by his employer to another, and when he undertakes to do the work of the other he becomes *497 the servant of such other, to perform the particular transaction. . . . | 4 | 1941–1971 |
American Sign & Indicator Corp. v. State
green
2 sentences1983American Sign & Indicator Corp. v. State, 93 Wn.2d 427, 434 , 610 P.2d 353 (1980); Anderson v. Red & White Constr. 1983American Sign & Indicator Corp. v. State, 93 Wn.2d 427, 434 , 610 P.2d 353 (1980); Anderson v. Red & White Constr. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Clarke v. Bohemian Breweries, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1963Clarke v. Bohemian Breweries, Inc., 7 Wn. (2d) 487, 110 P. (2d) 197 . ' The question presented by this assignment, then, turns upon the applicability of the loaned servant doctrine rather than upon the interpretation of and the immunity provided by RCW 51.24.010. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Billing v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1941Co., 189 Cal. 477, 483 , 209 P. 241 .]” The court went on to say that the loaned servant doctrine applies only where the power of control exists in the special master, having been for the time being resigned by the original master, a partial control by the special master not being sufficient. 1941Co., 189 Cal. 477, 483 , 209 P. 241 .]” The court went on to say that the loaned servant doctrine applies only where the power of control exists in the special master, having been for the time being resigned by the original master, a partial control by the special master not being sufficient. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. De Busley
green
1 sentence1941Co. v. De Busley, 261 Fed. 561 , a decision by the United States circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1920The rule is nowhere better stated than by Mr. Justice Moody in the case of Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215 , where he says: “To determine whether a given case falls within the one class or the other we must inquire whose is the work being performed, a question wMch is usually answered by ascertaining who has the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work. ’ ’ The loaned servant doctrine is based upon, and grows out of, the negligent act of the servant. 1920The rule is nowhere better stated than by Mr. Justice Moody in the case of Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215 , where he says: “To determine whether a given case falls within the one class or the other we must inquire whose is the work being performed, a question wMch is usually answered by ascertaining who has the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work. ’ ’ The loaned servant doctrine is based upon, and grows out of, the negligent act of the servant. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.