Biggs v. Vail

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the trial court erred in awarding fees because only three of the four claims for relief were found to be frivolous
• if statutory meaning is clear from plain and unambiguous language, that meaning must be accepted by the court
• if statutory meaning is clear from plain and unambiguous language, that meaning must be accepted by the court
• if there is ambiguity, extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, may be used to determine legislative intent
• if there is ambiguity, extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, may be used to determine legislative intent
• if there is ambiguity, extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, may be used to determine legislative intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re the Marriage of Kovacs
  Washington Supreme Court· 1993-07-08· cited 222×
• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2000-10-26· cited 212×
• CJC v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop
  Washington Supreme Court· 1999-09-08· cited 192×
• C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop
  Washington Supreme Court· 1999-07-29· cited 180×
• Biggs v. Vail
  Washington Supreme Court· 1994-07-07· cited 160×
• Burton v. Lehman
  Washington Supreme Court· 2005-01-13· cited 153×
• Berrocal v. Fernandez
  Washington Supreme Court· 2005-10-13· cited 140×
• Covell v. City of Seattle
  Washington Supreme Court· 1995-11-02· cited 130×
• Wright v. DAVE JOHNSON INS. INC.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2012-04-24· cited 93×
• State v. Verharen
  Washington Supreme Court· 1998-12-24· cited 86×
• Skimming v. Boxer
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-01-15· cited 79×
• State Ex Rel. Quick-Ruben v. Verharen
  Washington Supreme Court· 1998-12-24· cited 78×
• State v. Board of Yakima County Commissioners
  Washington Supreme Court· 1994-03-10· cited 72×
• Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-04-24· cited 58×
• Brin v. Stutzman
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1998-02-02· cited 49×
• Kearney v. Kearney
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1999-04-09· cited 46×
• Reid v. Dalton
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-11-09· cited 46×
• Tiger Oil Corp. v. Department of Licensing
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-11-26· cited 45×
• Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2002-02-14· cited 29×
• Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority
  Washington Supreme Court· 2006-03-30· cited 29×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Streater v. White
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1980-06-16· cited 200×
• Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
  Washington Supreme Court· 1991-04-18· cited 123×
• World Wide Video, Inc. v. City of Tukwila
  Washington Supreme Court· 1991-09-19· cited 115×
• Brown v. City of Yakima
  Washington Supreme Court· 1991-03-28· cited 89×
• Fluke Capital & Management Services Co. v. Richmond
  Washington Supreme Court· 1986-09-04· cited 65×
• Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1989-04-03· cited 29×
• Quadra Enterprises, Inc. v. R. A. Hanson Co.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1983-08-10· cited 6×