Hunt test (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Hunt test in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
The Alaska Fish And Wildlife Federation And Outdoor Council, Inc., v. Frank L. Dunklegreen
ca9 · 1987 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Because these forms of relief do not require individualized proof, the third prong of the Hunt test is satisfied.”); Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed’n & Outdoor Council, Inc. v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[B]ecause the [organization] seeks declaratory and prospective relief rather than money damages, its members need not participate directly in the litigation”). ¶30 I therefore agree with the majority’s decision that Riverview has standing.

2014Because these forms of relief do not require individualized proof, the third prong of the Hunt test is satisfied.”); Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed’n & Outdoor Council, Inc. v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[B]ecause the [organization] seeks declaratory and prospective relief rather than money damages, its members need not participate directly in the litigation”). ¶30 I therefore agree with the majority’s decision that Riverview has standing.

22
INTER. ASS'N OF FIRE. v. Spokane Airportsgreen
wash · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020The Hunt test provides that an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when “(1) the members of the organization would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests that the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither claim asserted nor relief requested requires the participation of the organization’s individual members.” Id. at 213-14 .

2020The Hunt test provides that an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when “(1) the members of the organization would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests that the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither claim asserted nor relief requested requires the participation of the organization’s individual members.” Id. at 213-14 .

11

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
In Re WINSHIP green
scotus · 1970
2 sentences

2005He contends the phrase “firmly convinced” does not convey the level of certainty required to establish guilt under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 , 25 L.

2005He contends the phrase “firmly convinced” does not convey the level of certainty required to establish guilt under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 , 25 L.

22005–2005
State v. Coe green
wash · 1984
2 sentences

2005Id. ¶ 8 Here, Mr. Hunt's challenge initially focuses on the phrase, "firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt," which he contends lowered the burden of proof in violation of due process.

2005Id. ¶8 Here, Mr. Hunt’s challenge initially focuses on the phrase, “firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt,” which he contends lowered the burden of proof in violation of due process.

22005–2005
Ironworkers District Council v. University of Washington Board of Regents neutral
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2001This court used the Hunt analysis in Ironworkers, 93 Wn.

2001This court used the Hunt analysis in Ironworkers, 93 Wn.

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

TX 36 (1898–2024) LA 10 (1980–2024) AL 10 (1984–2025) IL 8 (1986–2024) FL 7 (1983–2018) KY 7 (2014–2026) GA 6 (1977–2016) CA 6 (1974–2022) WA 6 (2001–2020) IA 6 (2017–2022) KS 6 (1985–2021) IN 5 (1988–2024) OH 5 (2003–2022) NC 5 (1994–2025) MD 4 (1971–2020) MS 4 (1991–2026) DE 3 (2016–2026) MA 3 (1994–2023) AR 2 (1962–2024) CT 2 (1991–2025) NY 2 (2011–2019) VT 2 (2019–2020) ME 2 (2016–2023) HI 2 (2006–2007) UT 2 (2024–2025) SC 2 (2011–2019) WI 2 (2003–2019) VA 2 (2000–2003)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check