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 2 courts 2005–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Burtchgreen2 sentences2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch's prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney's claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past misconduct). 2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch’s prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney’s claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past mi scon - duct). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guilliume v. McCulloch
green
2 sentences2014She contends that as next of kin, she was entitled to be the contact person for the preplanned disposition of her uncle’s body, and that Mr. Phillips violated her right by allowing Ms. Cervantes to plan and control arrangements despite Ms. Whitney’s objection. ¶15 “The right of the next of kin to control and direct the burial of a corpse and arrange for its preservation is not only a natural right, embracing a high order of sentiment, but has become to be well recognized as a legal right.” Guilliume v. McCulloch, 173 Wash. 694, 696 , 24 P.2d 93 (1933). 2014She contends that as next of kin, she was entitled to be the contact person for the preplanned disposition of her uncle’s body, and that Mr. Phillips violated her right by allowing Ms. Cervantes to plan and control arrangements despite Ms. Whitney’s objection. ¶15 “The right of the next of kin to control and direct the burial of a corpse and arrange for its preservation is not only a natural right, embracing a high order of sentiment, but has become to be well recognized as a legal right.” Guilliume v. McCulloch, 173 Wash. 694, 696 , 24 P.2d 93 (1933). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Disciplinary Proc. Against Whitney
green
2 sentences2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch's prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney's claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past misconduct). 2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch’s prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney’s claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past mi scon - duct). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney
green
2 sentences2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch's prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney's claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past misconduct). 2013See Burtch, 162 Wn.2d at 889 (noting Burtch’s prior misconduct was similar to that at issue, which shows he knew his conduct violated the RPCs); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 464 , 120 P.3d 550 (2005) (rejecting Whitney’s claim that collateral estoppel precludes the court from considering evidence of past mi scon - duct). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Malland v. Department of Retirement Systems
green
2 sentences2005Sys., 103 Wn.2d 484, 489 , 694 P.2d 16 (1985) (citing Rains v. State, 100 Wn.2d 660 , 674 P.2d 165 (1984)). ¶28 Contrary to Whitney’s claim, the doctrine of collateral estoppel has no application here. 2005Sys., 103 Wn.2d 484, 489 , 694 P.2d 16 (1985) (citing Rains v. State, 100 Wn.2d 660 , 674 P.2d 165 (1984)). ¶28 Contrary to Whitney’s claim, the doctrine of collateral estoppel has no application here. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Rains v. State
green
2 sentences2005Sys., 103 Wn.2d 484, 489 , 694 P.2d 16 (1985) (citing Rains v. State, 100 Wn.2d 660 , 674 P.2d 165 (1984)). ¶28 Contrary to Whitney’s claim, the doctrine of collateral estoppel has no application here. 2005Sys., 103 Wn.2d 484, 489 , 694 P.2d 16 (1985) (citing Rains v. State, 100 Wn.2d 660 , 674 P.2d 165 (1984)). ¶28 Contrary to Whitney’s claim, the doctrine of collateral estoppel has no application here. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
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.