Christensen v. Royal School Dist. No. 160

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “notion that minors are incapable of meaningful consent in a criminal law context should apply in the civil arena and command a consistent result”
• observing that a certified federal question is answered on narrow grounds and need not address all arguments
• observing that a certified federal question is answered on narrow grounds and need not address all arguments
• noting that normal contributory fault principles are \not germane\ to sexual abuse cases
• noting that “[t]he obvious purpose of [ ] statutes [criminalizing sexual activity with a minor] is to protect persons who, by virtue of their youth, are too immature to rationally or legally consent”
• referring to “the well-established law in Washington that a school district has an enhanced and solemn duty to protect minor students in its care”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).