6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.green2 sentences2008See Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 946 (analyzing whether allowing employers to discharge employees for violating a work rule when necessary to save a life would contravene public policy favoring lifesaving activity). 16 The resolution of this issue defines the scope of protected conduct, and is a question of law for the court. 2008Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 946 . ¶59 For example, in Gardner , an armored truck company discharged an employee for violating a work rule that prohibited him from leaving the truck while his companion was making a pickup or delivery. | 4 | 4 |
Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc.green2 sentences2008See Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 946 , 913 P.2d 377 (analyzing whether allowing employers to discharge employees for violating a work rule when necessary to save a life would contravene public policy favoring lifesaving activity). [1] The resolution of this issue defines the scope of protected conduct, and is a question of law for the court. 2008Gardner, 128 Wash.2d at 946 , 913 P.2d 377 . ś59 For example, in Gardner, an armored truck company discharged an employee for violating a work rule that prohibited him from leaving the truck while his companion was making a pickup or delivery. | 3 | 3 |
Bravo v. Dolsen Companiesgreen2 sentences2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wash.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer's discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in "concerted activities" violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer's alleged wrongdoingunlawful age discrimination together with the employee's reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). 2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wash.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer's discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in "concerted activities" violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer's alleged wrongdoingunlawful age discrimination together with the employee's reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). | 2 | 2 |
Marshall v. Von Zumwaltgreen2 sentences1984See Marshall v. Von Zumwalt, 120 Cal. App. 2d 807 , 262 P.2d 363 (1953). 1 Further, a Washington commentator has recognized the fairness of the approach. 1984See Marshall v. Von Zumwalt, 120 Cal. App. 2d 807 , 262 P.2d 363 (1953). 1 Further, a Washington commentator has recognized the fairness of the approach. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dicomes v. State
green
2 sentences2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wash.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer's discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in "concerted activities" violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer's alleged wrongdoingunlawful age discrimination together with the employee's reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). 2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wash.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer's discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in "concerted activities" violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer's alleged wrongdoingunlawful age discrimination together with the employee's reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Bennett v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wn.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer’s discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in “concerted activities” violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer’s alleged wrongdoing — unlawful age discrimination— together with the employee’s reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). 2000See also Bravo v. Dolsen Co., 125 Wash.2d 745, 758 , 888 P.2d 147 (1995) (finding employer's discharge of nonunionized plaintiffs for engaging in "concerted activities" violated public policy); Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 924-25 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (applying the Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612 , 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) whistleblowing analysis and finding the employer's alleged wrongdoingunlawful age discrimination together with the employee's reasonable response to the conduct, violated public policy). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Wahl v. Dash Point Family Dental Clinic, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017The only other Washington decision addressing the overriding justification element is Wahl v. Dash Point Family Dental Clinic, Inc., 144 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.