# State v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.

> Washington Supreme Court · December 31, 1980 · 95 Wash. 2d 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551991

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Real Estate Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. the State of Washington, Respondent, v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., Et Al, Petitioners
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1980
- **Citations:** 95 Wash. 2d 297; 622 P.2d 1185; 1980 Trade Cas. (CCH) 63; 1980 Wash. LEXIS 1441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brachtenbach
- **Judges:** Dolliver, Brachtenbach
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551991

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing primary jurisdiction of federal courts and deference towards agency decisions where agency has authority to regulate, has exercised this authority, and is in the better position than a court to resolve the issue
- discussing primary jurisdiction of federal courts and deference toward agency decisions where agency has authority to regulate, has exercised this authority, and is in the better position than a court to resolve the issue
- declining to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction based partly on the fact there was no challenge to an agency regulation or to agency procedures

## Opinion text

Brachtenbach, J.
(dissenting) — My dissent in the companion case of State v. Tacoma-Pierce County Multiple Listing Serv., 95 Wn.2d 280 , 622 P.2d 1190 (1980), is largely in point in this case and is incorporated by reference.
The only different circumstance relates to the statutory provisions governing multiple listing associations. Real estate brokers are subject to all of the other regulatory mandates discussed in the companion case.
Based upon the mentioned dissent, I would require an administrative decision before allowing maintenance of this litigation.
Stafford and Hicks, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551991. Public record. Not legal advice.