Court of Appeals of Washington· 6/10/1991
Cunningham v. State
Citations
- 811 P.2d 225
- 61 Wash. App. 562
- 1991 Wash. App. LEXIS 198
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that partial summary judgment was sufficiently final to invoke' collateral estoppel where judge issued a written opinion
- holding that partial summary judgment was suffi- ciently final to invoke collateral estoppel where judge issued a written opinion
- outlining factors relevant to whether a judgment is sufficiently final for purposes of issue preclusion
- adopting the following test for finality: (i) whether the prior decision was adequately deliberated; (ii) whether it was firm, rather 17 than tentative; (iii) whether the parties were fully heard; (iv
- adopting the following test for finality: (i) whether the prior decision was adequately deliberated; (ii) whether it was firm, rather 17 than tentative; (iii) whether the parties were fully heard; (iv) whether the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion; and (v
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Agid
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Jarosz v. PalmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2002-04-19· cited 246×
- Ensley v. PitcherCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2009-11-02· cited 86×
- Lowman v. WilburWashington Supreme Court· 2013-08-08· cited 76×
- State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1997-03-07· cited 63×
- In Re Douglas E. Miller, Debtor. Bonnie G. Snavely v. Douglas E. Miller, Debtor-AppelleeNinth Circuit· 2005-02-02· cited 28×
- Cramer v. Department of HighwaysCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1994-04-04· cited 25×
- Grimmett v. S & W Auto Sales Co.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1999-09-17· cited 23×
- In re the Dependency of H.S.Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-04-30· cited 22×
- Ruff v. County of KingCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1993-12-30· cited 5×
- Owen v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe RailroadCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2002-11-04· cited 4×
- Pacific Boring, Inc. v. Staheli Trenchless Consultants, Inc.W.D. Washington· 2015-10-05· cited 2×
- Tolliver v. United StatesW.D. Washington· 2012-08-03· cited 2×
- State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1997-04-18
- Miller v. SnavelyNinth Circuit· 2005-02-01
- Bonnie I. Meyers v. William KleinCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2020-02-10
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1985-04-11· cited 636×
- McDaniels v. CarlsonWashington Supreme Court· 1987-06-11· cited 210×
- Morris v. McNicolWashington Supreme Court· 1974-02-28· cited 202×
- Story v. Shelter Bay CompanyCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1988-09-06· cited 105×
- Avondale Shipyards, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Insured Lloyd's, Cross-AppelleeFifth Circuit· 1986-04-14· cited 89×
- Carpenter v. Young Ex Rel. YoungSupreme Court of Colorado· 1989-05-15· cited 51×
- Owens v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1956-06-28· cited 41×
- Wojcik v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1988-04-07· cited 33×
- Braegelmann v. County of SnohomishCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1989-01-30· cited 27×
- Klein v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1985-08-26· cited 19×
- Breivo v. City of AberdeenCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1976-05-25· cited 13×
- Chau v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1991-01-07· cited 12×
- Kristjanson v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1980-02-04· cited 11×
- Acker v. City of HuntsvilleCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1990-02-01· cited 11×
- Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.N.D. California· 1988-02-05· cited 9×
- Cordeiro v. BurnsHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1989-05-05· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.