Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Burt v. Dept. of Corrections

141 Wn. App. 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Burt v. Dept. of Corrections

5 Citing cases

  1. Burt v. Department of Corrections

    191 Wn. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)

    This court affirmed, rejecting Mr. Parmelee’s argument that he was an indispensable party under CR 19(a). Burt v. Dep’t of Corr., 141 Wn. App. 573 , 575, 170 P.3d 608 (2007), rev’d, 168 Wn.2d 828 . ¶ 11

  2. Abbott v. Dep't of Corr

    161 Wn. App. 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

    The trial court denied his motion. Mr. Parmelee appealed, arguing, among other things, his joinder in the action was mandatory under CR 19. Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 141 Wn. App. 573, 170 P.3d 608 (2007) ( Burt I). While the Burt I appeal was pending, numerous other employees petitioned to enjoin DOC from releasing their personal information to Mr. Parmelee, including M. Abbott.

  3. Burt v. Dept. of Corrections

    168 Wn. 2d 828 (Wash. 2010)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Washington Superior Court Rule 19, requester under the PRA was a necessary party to the injunction proceeding because "[w]ithout an advocate for the release of the requested records, th[e] purpose [of the PRA] can be frustrated"

    ¶6 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and concluded that "Mr. Parmelee was not needed for a just adjudication, nor was he needed in equity and good conscience to proceed." Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 141 Wn. App. 573, 580, 170 P.3d 608 (2007). The Court of Appeals held the motion to intervene under CR 24 was untimely.

  4. Burt v. Dep't of Corr

    164 Wash. 2d 1001 (Wash. 2008)

    August 5, 2008. Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 24076-2-III, November 6, 2007, 141 Wn. App. 573. Review Orders.

  5. Morgan v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr.

    361 P.3d 283 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 10 times

    This court affirmed, rejecting Mr. Parmelee's argument that he was an indispensable party under CR 19(a). Burt v. Wash. Dep't of Corr., 141 Wash.App. 573, 575, 170 P.3d 608 (2007), rev'd byBurt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010). ¶ 11 Mr. Parmelee petitioned for review by the Washington Supreme Court, which was granted.