7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cobra Roofing Services, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2011It noted that regardless of whether Cobra’s prior violation involved a different particular subsection under the code, “Cobra employees were exposed to the hazard of falling from a height of 10 feet or more because they lacked adequate fall protection.” Id. ¶42 The applicable regulation now, and at the time of TEC’s violations, provides that a repeat violation occurs when an employer has previously been cited for “a substantially similar hazard.” WAC 296-900-14020. 2011Reg. 00-11-098 (describing this and other amendments to the penalty provisions as having been intended to “increase public awareness and lessen confusion surrounding penalties”); cf. Cobra Roofing, 157 Wn.2d at 104 n.7 (Chambers, J., dissenting) (characterizing the change as a “slightly different articulation of what constitutes a repeat violation” not affecting his analysis). |43 The 2004 final order against TEC was judicially noticed by the IAJ without objection and was therefore properly considered by the board. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2007State v. Scott, 93 Wn.2d 7, 14 , 604 P.2d 943 (1980). 2007State v. Scott, 93 Wn.2d 7, 14 , 604 P.2d 943 (1980). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2004Furthermore, a very recent Washington case addressing the repeat violation issue supports the Department’s broad interpretation of “repeat violation.” Wash. Cedar & Supply, 119 Wn. 2004Division Two was satisfied with the general characterization of the multiple violations, concluding: “Given the evidence that Washington Cedar committed prior, similar violations and considering the deference we accord the Board’s findings, we cannot say that the Board’s finding of a repeat violation was clearly erroneous.” Id. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Commissioner of Labor & Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Based upon the language of RCW 49.17.060,1 would establish an evidentiary standard similar to that established in Commissioner of Labor & Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 344 Md. 17 , 684 A.2d 845 (1996), which the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) would have to meet before a repeat violation penalty is sustained. 2006Based upon the language of RCW 49.17.060,1 would establish an evidentiary standard similar to that established in Commissioner of Labor & Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 344 Md. 17 , 684 A.2d 845 (1996), which the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) would have to meet before a repeat violation penalty is sustained. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.