6 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Construction Co.green2 sentences2023Dist., 176 Wn.2d at 511 (“Under the statute of repose . . . , the cause of action must have accrued within the six years, but once it has, . . . that is the end of the statute of repose inquiry. 2014Whether an accrued claim is timely filed is a different question, involving the statute of limitations, not the statute of repose.” Huber, Hunt, 176 Wn.2d at 511 . 2. | 1 | 3 |
Holland v. City of Tacomagreen1 sentence2023See Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Babcock v. State
green
2 sentences2024Br. of Resp’t at 56; Babcock v. State, 112 Wn.2d 83, 105 , 768 P.2d 481 (1989) (plurality) (Babcock I), vacated on recons., 116 Wn.2d at 596 . 20 No. 57207-9-II In Babcock I, our Supreme Court held “The fact that the [DSHS] caseworkers acted as participants in an adversary hearing renders their actions immune under the common law doctrine of absolute immunity for participants in judicial proceedings.” 112 Wn.2d at 97 . 2024Br. of Resp’t at 56; Babcock v. State, 112 Wn.2d 83, 105 , 768 P.2d 481 (1989) (plurality) (Babcock I), vacated on recons., 116 Wn.2d at 596 . 20 No. 57207-9-II In Babcock I, our Supreme Court held “The fact that the [DSHS] caseworkers acted as participants in an adversary hearing renders their actions immune under the common law doctrine of absolute immunity for participants in judicial proceedings.” 112 Wn.2d at 97 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Babcock v. State
green
1 sentence2024Br. of Resp’t at 56; Babcock v. State, 112 Wn.2d 83, 105 , 768 P.2d 481 (1989) (plurality) (Babcock I), vacated on recons., 116 Wn.2d at 596 . 20 No. 57207-9-II In Babcock I, our Supreme Court held “The fact that the [DSHS] caseworkers acted as participants in an adversary hearing renders their actions immune under the common law doctrine of absolute immunity for participants in judicial proceedings.” 112 Wn.2d at 97 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pfeifer v. City of Bellingham
green
1 sentence2020Finally, the plaintiff must have filed suit within the appropriate statute of limitation for the cause of action.1 Id. 1 Although the statute of limitation is relevant to the statute of repose analysis, the two are significantly different. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. Ottomeier
green
1 sentence2015I would decide the dispute before this court on the basis of our Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncements. ¶51 In fairness, the Calhoun-Grant “limitation” was also purportedly founded on “generally recognized equitable principles.” Johnson, 45 Wn.2d at 423 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.