Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Asbestos Corp.green2 sentences2014Instead, it merely reiterated that which ER 804(b)(1) already states: "the predecessor in interest exception requires the predecessor to have the opportunity to examine the witness." Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wn. 2014Instead, it merely reiterated that which ER 804(b)(1) already states: “the predecessor in interest exception requires the predecessor to have the opportunity to examine the witness.” Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wn. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Whislergreen2 sentences2013See State v. Whisler, 61 Wn. App. 126, 135 , 810 P.2d 540 (1991) ("no legitimate rationale" to disallow former testimony "so long as the 'opportunity and similar motive' requirements ofER 804(b)(1) are met"); Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wn. App. 564, 579 ,157 PJd 406 (2007) ("the predecessor in interest exception requires the predecessor to have the opportunity to examine the witness"); Lloyd v. Am. Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179 , 1187 (3d Cir. 1978) ("'if it appears that in the former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about the same matters as the present party would hav 2013See State v. Whisler, 61 Wn. App. 126, 135 , 810 P.2d 540 (1991) ("no legitimate rationale" to disallow former testimony "so long as the 'opportunity and similar motive' requirements ofER 804(b)(1) are met"); Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wn. App. 564, 579 ,157 PJd 406 (2007) ("the predecessor in interest exception requires the predecessor to have the opportunity to examine the witness"); Lloyd v. Am. Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179 , 1187 (3d Cir. 1978) ("'if it appears that in the former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about the same matters as the present party would hav | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eaton
green
2 sentences2007Uniroyal contends that because Allen did not argue the application of this exception before, the predecessor-in-interest exception should not be considered for the first time on appeal. [4] *413 ¶ 25 "Error in the exclusion of testimony by a trial court generally cannot be urged under a theory presented for the first time on appeal." State v. Eaton, 30 Wash. App. 288 , 293 n. 7, 633 P.2d 921 (1981). 2007Uniroyal contends that because Allen did not argue the application of this exception before, the predecessor in interest exception should not be considered for the first time on appeal. 4 ¶25 “Error in the exclusion of testimony by a trial court generally cannot be urged under a theory presented for the first time on appeal.” State v. Eaton, 30 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013See State v. Whisler, 61 Wn. App. 126, 135 , 810 P.2d 540 (1991) ("no legitimate rationale" to disallow former testimony "so long as the 'opportunity and similar motive' requirements ofER 804(b)(1) are met"); Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wn. App. 564, 579 ,157 PJd 406 (2007) ("the predecessor in interest exception requires the predecessor to have the opportunity to examine the witness"); Lloyd v. Am. Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179 , 1187 (3d Cir. 1978) ("'if it appears that in the former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about the same matters as the present party would hav | 1 | 2013–2013 |