responsible corporate officer doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

responsible corporate officer doctrine in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Department of Ecology v. Lundgrengreen
washctapp · 1999 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2019
2 sentences

2013Under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, “[i]f a corporate officer participates in the wrongful conduct, or knowingly approves of the conduct, then the officer, as well as the corporation, is liable for the penalties.” Dep’t of Ecology v. Lundgren, 94 Wn.

2013App. at 246. ¶80 As Lundgren demonstrates, the responsible corporate officer doctrine has been applied in the context of environmental laws. 94 Wn.

14

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Dotterweich green
scotus · 1943
2 sentences

1999Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976) (citations omitted). 9 This rule, known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine, was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , 64 S. Ct. 134 , 88 L.

1999Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976) (citations omitted). 9 This rule, known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine, was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , 64 S. Ct. 134 , 88 L.

31999–2019
State v. Lundgren green
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2019That doctrine expands liability from a corporation to an individual officer who would not otherwise be liable "where the officer stands 'in responsible relation to a public danger.' " Dep't of Ecology v. Lundgren , 94 Wash. App. 236 , 243, 971 P.2d 948 (1999) (quoting United States v. Dotterweich , 320 U.S. 277 , 281, 64 S. Ct. 134 , 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943) ).

2013App. 236, 243 , 971 P.2d 948 (1999).

22013–2019
United States v. Park green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2013App. at 244 (quoting Park, 421 U.S. at 673-74 ). ¶82 But the fully quoted passage refers to the corporate officer’s ability to prevent or correct a violation of the relevant statute, here the HWMA, and states that his failure to do so is the premise on which liability is imposed under the responsible corporate officer doctrine.

1999In United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 , 95 S.Ct. 1903 , 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975), the Court reaffirmed Dotterweich and applied the responsible corporate officer doctrine to uphold the criminal conviction of an officer.

21999–2013
United States v. Pollution Abatement Services of Oswego, Inc., H. Willard Pierce and Jack Miller green
ca2 · 1985
2 sentences

1999In United States v. Pollution Abatement Servs. of Oswego, Inc., 763 F.2d 133 (2d.

1999In United States v. Pollution Abatement Servs. of Oswego, Inc., 763 F.2d 133 (2d Cir. 1985), the court imposed civil liability upon two corporate officers for violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

21999–1999
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. green
wash · 1976
2 sentences

1999Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976) (citations omitted). 9 This rule, known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine, was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , 64 S. Ct. 134 , 88 L.

1999Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976) (citations omitted). 9 This rule, known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine, was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , 64 S. Ct. 134 , 88 L.

21999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.180 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.215 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.222 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.080 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.144 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 6 (1999–2019) IN 5 (2001–2012) MN 5 (1992–2011) IL 3 (2004–2016) CT 3 (2005–2015) CA 2 (2008–2014)

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