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 1996–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tapper v. Employment Security Departmentgreen2 sentences1996See Tapper, 122 Wash.2d at 408 , 858 P.2d 494 . 1996See Tapper, 122 Wn.2d at 408 . | 2 | 2 |
Dickinson v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2011Dickinson, 105 Wash.2d at 470 , 716 P.2d 814 ("`[A]n act, although forbidden, *186 or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment.'" (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 230 (1958))); Smith v. Leber, 34 Wash.2d 611, 623-24 , 209 P.2d 297 (1949). 2011Dickinson, 105 Wn.2d at 470 (“ ‘[A]n act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second) op Agency § 230 (1958))); Smith v. Leber, 34 Wn.2d 611, 623-24 , 209 P.2d 297 (1949). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Leber
green
2 sentences2011Dickinson, 105 Wn.2d at 470 (“ ‘[A]n act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second) op Agency § 230 (1958))); Smith v. Leber, 34 Wn.2d 611, 623-24 , 209 P.2d 297 (1949). 2011Dickinson, 105 Wn.2d at 470 (“ ‘[A]n act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second) op Agency § 230 (1958))); Smith v. Leber, 34 Wn.2d 611, 623-24 , 209 P.2d 297 (1949). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
2 sentences2011NOTES [1] For clarity, we refer to the Rahmans by their first names, intending no disrespect. [2] Nor, in fairness to the State's argument, is there any suggestion that, had Mohammad's driving behavior run afoul of a workplace rule requiring employees to "`use ordinary care under all circumstances,'" Poundstone, 189 Wash. at 501 , 65 P.2d 1261 (quoting Yellow Cab, 180 N.W. at 126 ), the State would be resisting vicarious liability for Mohammad's negligent driving. [3] This section was not carried forward in the Restatement (Third) of Agency, adopted by the American Law Institute in 2005 and pu 2011Nor, in fairness to the State’s argument, is there any suggestion that had Mohammad’s driving behavior run afoul of a workplace rule requiring employees to “ ‘use ordinary care under all circumstances,’ ” Poundstone , 189 Wash, at 501 (quoting Yellow Cab, 180 N.W. at 126 ), the State would be resisting vicarious liability for Mohammad’s negligent driving. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
neutral
2 sentences1999The Companies also rely heavily upon Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Auth., 82 Wash.App. 67 , 915 P.2d 537 (1996), review denied, 131 Wash.2d 1025 , 937 P.2d 1101 (1997), for the blanket proposition that an agency must, under the APA, "provide a clear explanation of its reasons for issuing a workplace standard which demonstrates that it considered the proper legal factors and that it rationally reviewed and analyzed the pertinent evidence." Appellants' Br. at 12. 1999The Companies also rely heavily upon Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Auth., 82 Wash.App. 67 , 915 P.2d 537 (1996), review denied, 131 Wash.2d 1025 , 937 P.2d 1101 (1997), for the blanket proposition that an agency must, under the APA, "provide a clear explanation of its reasons for issuing a workplace standard which demonstrates that it considered the proper legal factors and that it rationally reviewed and analyzed the pertinent evidence." Appellants' Br. at 12. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Poundstone v. Whitney
green
2 sentences2011NOTES [1] For clarity, we refer to the Rahmans by their first names, intending no disrespect. [2] Nor, in fairness to the State's argument, is there any suggestion that, had Mohammad's driving behavior run afoul of a workplace rule requiring employees to "`use ordinary care under all circumstances,'" Poundstone, 189 Wash. at 501 , 65 P.2d 1261 (quoting Yellow Cab, 180 N.W. at 126 ), the State would be resisting vicarious liability for Mohammad's negligent driving. [3] This section was not carried forward in the Restatement (Third) of Agency, adopted by the American Law Institute in 2005 and pu 2011NOTES [1] For clarity, we refer to the Rahmans by their first names, intending no disrespect. [2] Nor, in fairness to the State's argument, is there any suggestion that, had Mohammad's driving behavior run afoul of a workplace rule requiring employees to "`use ordinary care under all circumstances,'" Poundstone, 189 Wash. at 501 , 65 P.2d 1261 (quoting Yellow Cab, 180 N.W. at 126 ), the State would be resisting vicarious liability for Mohammad's negligent driving. [3] This section was not carried forward in the Restatement (Third) of Agency, adopted by the American Law Institute in 2005 and pu | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.