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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Margola Associates v. City of Seattle.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Margola Associates v. City of Seattle Anchor | green | “contracting parties are generally deemed to have relied on existing state law pertaining to interpretation and enforcement.” | 7 |
| 2 | Godfrey v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. | green | “arbitration in washington is exclusively statutory” | 4 |
| 3 | Godfrey v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. | green | “parties to an arbitration contract are not free to craft a 'common law' arbitration alternative to the act, . . . any efforts to alter the fundamental provisions of the act by agreement are inoperative.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.