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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 13 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 City of Seattle v. Williams.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Seattle v. Williams Anchor | green | “statutory writs should be granted sparingly when used as a method of review of interlocutory decisions of courts of limited jurisdiction.” | 4 |
| 2 | Foster v. King County | green | “this is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary situations.” | 3 |
| 3 | Jacobsen v. State | green | “summary judgment is a procedural device designed to avoid the time and expense of a trial when no trial is necessary.” | 3 |
| 4 | Commanda v. Cary | green | “since the ralj provides a 'speedy and adequate remedy at law' in most instances, we conclude that statutory writs should be granted sparingly when used as a method of review of interlocutory decisions of courts of limited jurisdiction.” | 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.