Hangman test (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Hangman test in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Milbradt v. Margarisgreen
wash · 1985 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988See Milbradt v. Margaris, 103 Wn.2d 337 , 693 P.2d 78 (1985).

1988See Milbradt v. Margaris, 103 Wn.2d 337 , 693 P.2d 78 (1985).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Quimby v. Fine green
washctapp · 1986
2 sentences

2010Thus, we hold that Young’s failure to produce additional evidence suggesting Savidge’s entrepreneurial motives at this stage is not fatal to her claim. 16 ¶40 “[WJhether [Savidge’s] conduct meets the other prongs of the Hangman test is a question of fact to be resolved at the trial level.” Quimby, 45 Wn.

2010Thus, we hold that Young’s failure to produce additional evidence suggesting Savidge’s entrepreneurial motives at this stage is not fatal to her claim. 16 ¶40 “[WJhether [Savidge’s] conduct meets the other prongs of the Hangman test is a question of fact to be resolved at the trial level.” Quimby, 45 Wn.

22010–2010
Keyes v. Bollinger green
washctapp · 1982
2 sentences

2007We must consider whether the damages alleged by Ms. Ambach constitute injury to “business or property” recoverable under the CPA. ¶17 In Keyes v. Bollinger, 31 Wn.

2007We must consider whether the damages alleged by Ms. Ambach constitute injury to “business or property” recoverable under the CPA. ¶17 In Keyes v. Bollinger, 31 Wn.

22007–2007
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance green
wash · 1986
2 sentences

2023A per se violation establishes the first three elements of the Hangman test for a violation 23 We note RCW 19.16.250(21) caps collection fees at 35 percent. 20 of the CPA. 105 Wn.2d at 784-89 .

2023A per se violation establishes the first three elements of the Hangman test for a violation 23 We note RCW 19.16.250(21) caps collection fees at 35 percent. 20 of the CPA. 105 Wn.2d at 784-89 .

12023–2023

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.090 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.920 (4)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check