7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mike M. Johnson, Inc. v. Spokane County
green
2 sentences2024Johnson, the court explained that contractors are required to comply with the mandatory protest and claim procedures even when the owner has actual notice of the protest or claim. 150 Wn.2d at 387-88 . 2024Johnson, the court explained that contractors are required to comply with the mandatory protest and claim procedures even when the owner has actual notice of the protest or claim. 150 Wn.2d at 387-88 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Weber Construction, Inc. v. Spokane County
green
2 sentences2006Weber, 124 Wash.App. at 34 , 98 P.3d 60 . ¶ 49 Division Three held that Weber presented substantial evidence that it strictly complied with the contract's protest and claim procedures but that, even if it had not, the County's failure to provide the required information waived strict compliance. 2006Weber, 124 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Bignold v. King County
green
2 sentences2003MMJ contends that the decision of Bignold v. King County, 65 Wn.2d 817, 822 , 399 P.2d 611 (1965) establishes an “actual notice” exception. the [owner] became immediately aware of the changed conditions as soon as they developed and ordered the contractor to perform the changes and extra work involved . . . [u]nder such conditions, the county cannot defeat recovery by a contractor even if no written notice was given. 2003MMJ contends that the decision of Bignold v. King County, 65 Wn.2d 817, 822 , 399 P.2d 611 (1965) establishes an “actual notice” exception. the [owner] became immediately aware of the changed conditions as soon as they developed and ordered the contractor to perform the changes and extra work involved . . . [u]nder such conditions, the county cannot defeat recovery by a contractor even if no written notice was given. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Weber Const., Inc. v. County of Spokane
neutral
2 sentences2006Weber, 124 Wash.App. at 34 , 98 P.3d 60 . ¶ 49 Division Three held that Weber presented substantial evidence that it strictly complied with the contract's protest and claim procedures but that, even if it had not, the County's failure to provide the required information waived strict compliance. 2006Weber, 124 Wash.App. at 35 , 98 P.3d 60 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Tozer v. Skagit County
neutral
2 sentences1990Tozer v. Skagit Cy., 34 Wash. 147, 151 , 75 P. 638 (1904). 1990Tozer v. Skagit Cy., 34 Wash. 147, 151 , 75 P. 638 (1904). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.
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.