6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
green
2 sentences2011The Court further held that "[i]f the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, the task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent." Id. 2011The Court further held that “[i]f the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, the task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.” Id. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
green
2 sentences2016When a federal law contains an express preemption provision, “the court ‘must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ ” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 67, 79 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. 2016When a federal law contains an express preemption provision, “the court ‘must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ ” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 67, 79 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. | 2 | 1995–2016 |
Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2016When a federal law contains an express preemption provision, “the court ‘must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ ” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 67, 79 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. 2016When a federal law contains an express preemption provision, “the court ‘must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ ” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 67, 79 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1999Under the plain wording of the rule, once a party complies with the terms of the statute, prejudice is deemed established and the judge is “ ‘divested of authority to proceed further into the merits of the action.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Dixon, 74 Wn.2d 700, 702 , 446 P.2d 329 (1968)). 1999Under the plain wording of the rule, once a party complies with the terms of the statute, prejudice is deemed established and the judge is “ ‘divested of authority to proceed further into the merits of the action.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Dixon, 74 Wn.2d 700, 702 , 446 P.2d 329 (1968)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Cockrell
green
1 sentence1999Under the plain wording of the rule, once a party complies with the terms of the statute, prejudice is deemed established and the judge is “ ‘divested of authority to proceed further into the merits of the action.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Dixon, 74 Wn.2d 700, 702 , 446 P.2d 329 (1968)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.