Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Washington Case Commentaries

Implied Age Discrimination Claims Recognized under RCW 49.44.090 for Employers with Fewer Than Eight Employees

Implied Age Discrimination Claims Recognized under RCW 49.44.090 for Employers with Fewer Than Eight Employees

Date: Jan 19, 1990
Implied Age Discrimination Claims Recognized under RCW 49.44.090 for Employers with Fewer Than Eight Employees Introduction The case of Laura Bennett, et al., Appellants, v. J. Michael Hardy, et al.,...
Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company: CERCLA Response Costs as Damages Under CGL Policies

Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company: CERCLA Response Costs as Damages Under CGL Policies

Date: Jan 5, 1990
Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company: CERCLA Response Costs as Damages Under CGL Policies Introduction In the landmark case of Boeing Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, et al....
Washington's Expansion of Personal Jurisdiction: SHUTE v. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES

Washington's Expansion of Personal Jurisdiction: SHUTE v. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES

Date: Dec 8, 1989
Washington's Expansion of Personal Jurisdiction: SHUTE v. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES Introduction The case of SHUTE v. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES marked a significant development in the realm of personal...
Consent Requirements in Warrantless Searches: Analysis of STATE v. LEACH

Consent Requirements in Warrantless Searches: Analysis of STATE v. LEACH

Date: Dec 1, 1989
Consent Requirements in Warrantless Searches: Analysis of STATE v. LEACH Introduction State v. Duncan Farwell Leach (113 Wn. 2d 735, 1989) is a pivotal case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Washington Supreme Court Establishes No Duty for Pharmacists to Warn of Long-Term Drug Side Effects

Washington Supreme Court Establishes No Duty for Pharmacists to Warn of Long-Term Drug Side Effects

Date: Dec 1, 1989
Washington Supreme Court Establishes No Duty for Pharmacists to Warn of Long-Term Drug Side Effects Introduction In the landmark case of Elaine McKee v. American Home Products Corporation, et al....
Essential Elements Rule in Misdemeanor Charging Documents Established by STATE v. LEACH and Seattle v. Elverston

Essential Elements Rule in Misdemeanor Charging Documents Established by STATE v. LEACH and Seattle v. Elverston

Date: Nov 23, 1989
Essential Elements Rule in Misdemeanor Charging Documents Established by STATE v. LEACH and Seattle v. Elverston Introduction The State of Washington v. Duncan Leach and Seattle v. Maureen Elverston...
Affirmation of Custodial Interference Statute and Clarification of 'Lawful Custody' in Interstate Disputes: State v. Carver

Affirmation of Custodial Interference Statute and Clarification of 'Lawful Custody' in Interstate Disputes: State v. Carver

Date: Nov 1, 1989
Affirmation of Custodial Interference Statute and Clarification of 'Lawful Custody' in Interstate Disputes: State v. Carver Introduction In the landmark case of THE STATE OF WASHINGTON v. PETER M....
Admissibility of Prior Theft Convictions Under ER 609(a): Comprehensive Analysis of STATE v. BROWN

Admissibility of Prior Theft Convictions Under ER 609(a): Comprehensive Analysis of STATE v. BROWN

Date: Nov 1, 1989
Admissibility of Prior Theft Convictions Under ER 609(a): Comprehensive Analysis of STATE v. BROWN Introduction In State of Washington v. James Artis Brown, 113 Wn. 2d 520 (1989), the Supreme Court...
Clarifying the Public Policy Exception in Wrongful Discharge: DEANNA DICOMES v. State of Washington

Clarifying the Public Policy Exception in Wrongful Discharge: DEANNA DICOMES v. State of Washington

Date: Nov 1, 1989
Clarifying the Public Policy Exception in Wrongful Discharge: DEANNA DICOMES v. State of Washington Introduction The case of Deanna Dicomes v. The State of Washington, decided by the Supreme Court of...
Liability of Drinking Establishments for Assaults by Patrons: A New Precedent in Premises Duty and Negligence

Liability of Drinking Establishments for Assaults by Patrons: A New Precedent in Premises Duty and Negligence

Date: Oct 27, 1989
Liability of Drinking Establishments for Assaults by Patrons: A New Precedent in Premises Duty and Negligence Introduction The case of Robert Steve Christen v. Victor K. Lee, et al. and Matt Long v....
Superior Security Interest in Gross Proceeds: Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc. Analysis

Superior Security Interest in Gross Proceeds: Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc. Analysis

Date: Sep 29, 1989
Superior Security Interest in Gross Proceeds: Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc. Analysis Introduction Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc., 113 Wn. 2d 346 (1989), is a...
Estoppel in Insurance Policy Renewals: The Saunders v. Lloyd's of London Decision

Estoppel in Insurance Policy Renewals: The Saunders v. Lloyd's of London Decision

Date: Sep 22, 1989
Estoppel in Insurance Policy Renewals: The Saunders v. Lloyd's of London Decision Introduction The case of Larry G. Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, et al. (113 Wn. 2d 330), adjudicated by the Supreme...
State v. Hopson: Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections in the Context of Governmental Misconduct and Mistrials

State v. Hopson: Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections in the Context of Governmental Misconduct and Mistrials

Date: Sep 15, 1989
State v. Hopson: Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections in the Context of Governmental Misconduct and Mistrials Introduction State of Washington v. Ervin O'Dell Hopson is a seminal case adjudicated...
Establishing Absolute Immunity for Expert Witnesses: Implications from Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens

Establishing Absolute Immunity for Expert Witnesses: Implications from Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens

Date: Jul 21, 1989
Establishing Absolute Immunity for Expert Witnesses: Implications from Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens Introduction The case of Robert L. Bruce, et al vs. Byrne-Stevens Associates Engineers, Inc., et al (113...
Insurance Duty to Defend Excluded in Self-Defense Fatalities: Grange Insurance v. Brosseau

Insurance Duty to Defend Excluded in Self-Defense Fatalities: Grange Insurance v. Brosseau

Date: Jul 14, 1989
Insurance Duty to Defend Excluded in Self-Defense Fatalities: Grange Insurance Company v. Brosseau Introduction The case of Grange Insurance Company v. Martin Brosseau et al. (113 Wn. 2d 91)...
Harmless Error in Burglary Jury Instructions: Analysis of State v. Handran

Harmless Error in Burglary Jury Instructions: Analysis of State v. Handran

Date: Jul 7, 1989
Harmless Error in Burglary Jury Instructions: Analysis of State v. Handran Introduction State of Washington v. Daniel Handran, 113 Wn.2d 11 (1989), is a pivotal case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Limitation on Inference of Criminal Intent in Attempted Burglary: Washington v. Jackson

Limitation on Inference of Criminal Intent in Attempted Burglary: Washington v. Jackson

Date: Jun 30, 1989
Limitation on Inference of Criminal Intent in Attempted Burglary: Washington v. Jackson Introduction Washington v. Jackson, 112 Wn. 2d 867 (1989), is a landmark case adjudicated by the Supreme Court...
Washington Product Liability Act Preempts Common Law Remedies and Excludes Economic Loss

Washington Product Liability Act Preempts Common Law Remedies and Excludes Economic Loss

Date: Jun 30, 1989
Washington Product Liability Act Preempts Common Law Remedies and Excludes Economic Loss Introduction The case of Washington Water Power Company (WWP) v. Graybar Electric Company et al., adjudicated...
Intentional Interference with Business Expectancy: Insights from PARKRIDGE v. SEATTLE

Intentional Interference with Business Expectancy: Insights from PARKRIDGE v. SEATTLE

Date: Jun 23, 1989
Intentional Interference with Business Expectancy: Insights from PARKRIDGE v. SEATTLE Introduction The landmark case of Riley W. Pleas, et al, v. The City of Seattle, adjudicated by the Supreme Court...
Unconstitutional Tort Reform: Supreme Court of Washington Strikes Down RCW 4.56.250 for Violating Jury Trial Rights

Unconstitutional Tort Reform: Supreme Court of Washington Strikes Down RCW 4.56.250 for Violating Jury Trial Rights

Date: Apr 28, 1989
Unconstitutional Tort Reform: Supreme Court of Washington Strikes Down RCW 4.56.250 for Violating Jury Trial Rights Introduction Austin Sofie, et al. v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al. (112 Wn. 2d...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert