6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply Systemgreen2 sentences2019Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 131-32 . 8 No. 77164-7-1/9 In addition to the primary liability of a seller, RCW 21.20.430(3) provides for secondary joint and several liability for partners, officers, directors, or any other person that "occupies a similar status or performs a similar function of" or "materially aids in the transaction" of a seller. 2013See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 131 . ¶24 Second, we consider whether Donnerstag’s conduct created a continuous and active operation up to the time of sale, or whether Donnerstag’s conduct created a harmless situation unless acted on by others for whom Donnerstag was not responsible. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt
green
2 sentences2020The court may then adjust this figure to reflect a number of other factors. j~ Due to the discretionary nature of this calculation, when a trial court awards attorney fees, “it must supply findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit a reviewing court to determine why the trial court awarded the amount in question.” SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 181 Wn.2d 127, 144 , 331 P.3d 40 (2014). 2020The court may then adjust this figure to reflect a number of other factors. j~ Due to the discretionary nature of this calculation, when a trial court awards attorney fees, “it must supply findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit a reviewing court to determine why the trial court awarded the amount in question.” SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 181 Wn.2d 127, 144 , 331 P.3d 40 (2014). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Malychewski
neutral
1 sentence2002Malychewski, 41 Wn. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Smith
green
2 sentences1982For example, in the case of In re Smith, 83 Wn.2d 659, 663 , 521 P.2d 212 (1974), we set forth five factors to be considered in determining the proper measure of discipline: (1) the seriousness and circumstances of the offense; (2) avoidance of repetition; (3) deterrent effect upon others; (4) maintenance of respect for the honor and dignity of the legal profession; and (5) assurance that those seeking legal services will be insulated from unprofessional conduct. 1982For example, in the case of In re Smith, 83 Wn.2d 659, 663 , 521 P.2d 212 (1974), we set forth five factors to be considered in determining the proper measure of discipline: (1) the seriousness and circumstances of the offense; (2) avoidance of repetition; (3) deterrent effect upon others; (4) maintenance of respect for the honor and dignity of the legal profession; and (5) assurance that those seeking legal services will be insulated from unprofessional conduct. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.