6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2019 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. Chadwickred2 sentences2015See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 15 , 97 S. Ct. 2476 , 53 L. 2015See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 15 , 97 S. Ct. 2476 , 53 L. | 2 | 2 |
Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 474 , 987 P.2d 620 (discussing the investigative records exception, not the controversy exception). 2007Id. at 474 (discussing the investigative records exception, not the controversy exception). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019App. at 389-90 . 11 Broom, 169 Wn.2d at 239 . 4 No. 77891-9-1/5 the award, as, for instance, where the arbitrator identifies a portion of the award as punitive damages in a jurisdiction that does not allow punitive damages.'"12 Here, we review the superior court's decision whether to confirm or vacate the arbitrator's award under RCW 7.04A based upon whether the arbitrator exceeded her authority; the sole ground argued by both parties to the superior court and in their briefing on appea1.13 An entirely different standard of review applies to the award of attorney fees incurred in the superior | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cummings v. Budget Tank Removal & Environmental Services, LLC
green
1 sentence2019App. at 389-90 . 11 Broom, 169 Wn.2d at 239 . 4 No. 77891-9-1/5 the award, as, for instance, where the arbitrator identifies a portion of the award as punitive damages in a jurisdiction that does not allow punitive damages.'"12 Here, we review the superior court's decision whether to confirm or vacate the arbitrator's award under RCW 7.04A based upon whether the arbitrator exceeded her authority; the sole ground argued by both parties to the superior court and in their briefing on appea1.13 An entirely different standard of review applies to the award of attorney fees incurred in the superior | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Capers v. the Bon Marche
green
1 sentence2017App. 191, 199 , 385 P.3d 156 (2016); Capers v. Bon Marche, 91 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Donald Canfield v. Michelle Clark
green
2 sentences2017Simply, these are all areas with restricted access and located outside the airport terminal buildings.” RP (Feb. 24, 2015) at 695. 18 Port Ex. 482, ¶ 15, at 54 (emphasis added). 19 RP (Feb. 23, 2015) at 449. 20 The jury also assigned 0.2 percent fault to Afoa. 21 CP at 4839 (emphasis added). 22 Contrary to Afoa’s argument that the Port invited error in question l’s use of the disjunctive “or,” the Port proposed an entirely different instruction: “Did the [Port] retain a right to direct the manner in which the plaintiff’s employer, [EAGLE], performed or completed the maintenance of the equipmen 2017App. 191, 199 , 385 P.3d 156 (2016); Capers v. Bon Marche, 91 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.