Fourteenth Amendment due process clause in Washington

39 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Gitlow v. New Yorkgreen scotus · 1925 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015 2 sentences 2015I; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 45 S. Ct. 625 , 69 L. 2015I; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 45 S. Ct. 625 , 69 L.	2	4
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkampred scotus · 1992 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 301, 305 , 112 S. Ct. 1904 , 119 L. 2013Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 301, 305 , 112 S. Ct. 1904 , 119 L.	2	2
City of Bellevue v. Leegreen wash · 2009 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See 166 Wn.2d at 583 -86 (citing City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004), in which the Court invalidated a prior set of suspension procedures for violating the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause).	1	1
City of Redmond v. Mooregreen wash · 2004 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See 166 Wn.2d at 583 -86 (citing City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004), in which the Court invalidated a prior set of suspension procedures for violating the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause).	1	1
City of Redmond v. Mooregreen wash · 2004 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See 166 Wn.2d at 583 -86 (citing City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004), in which the Court invalidated a prior set of suspension procedures for violating the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause).	1	1
United States v. Nestor Uribe, United States of America v. Leon Alberior Rave-Arias, United States of America v. David Rashgreen ca1 · 1989 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Ed. 2d 521 (1998); United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554, 562 (1st Cir. 1989) (“the statutory violation — allowing a convicted felon to serve — did not implicate the fundamental fairness of the trial or the defendants’ constitutional rights”); United States v. Humphreys, 982 F.2d 254, 261 (8th Cir. 1992) (“ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury does not require an absolute bar on felon-jurors. . . . [T]he guarantee of an impartial jury [protects] against juror bias.	1	1
United States v. Lloyd E. Humphreysgreen ca8 · 1993 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Ed. 2d 521 (1998); United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554, 562 (1st Cir. 1989) (“the statutory violation — allowing a convicted felon to serve — did not implicate the fundamental fairness of the trial or the defendants’ constitutional rights”); United States v. Humphreys, 982 F.2d 254, 261 (8th Cir. 1992) (“ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury does not require an absolute bar on felon-jurors. . . . [T]he guarantee of an impartial jury [protects] against juror bias.	1	1
cluster 756563green ca9 · 1998 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Ed. 119 (1902) (treating a motion for new trial like any other untimely motion when it is based on the defendant’s discovery that a juror was a minor and had been convicted of several crimes); Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding that a felon serving on a jury in violation of state statute did not violate Sixth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 141 , 119 S. Ct. 500 , 142 L.	1	1
Calderon v. Colemangreen scotus · 1998 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
In Re Oliver green scotus · 1948 2 sentences 2015The United State Constitution's Sixth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, directs, in relevant part, that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 , 68 S. Ct. 499 , 92 L. 2015The United State Constitution's Sixth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, directs, in relevant part, that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 , 68 S. Ct. 499 , 92 L.	5	2014–2015
In Re WINSHIP green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 2013C Fourteenth Amendment due process and the Jackson standard ¶59 Having demonstrated that our Supreme Court has never decided a Fourteenth Amendment due process proof beyond a reasonable doubt case based upon the incidental restraint concern, we now address the parameters of the Jackson standard to explain why, absent a legislative or judicial narrowing of the definition of “restrain,” the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the incidental restraint concern. ¶60 The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause protects the accused in a criminal case “against conviction except upon proof beyond 2013The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause protects the accused in a criminal case "against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt ofevery fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 .	4	2013–2014
Jackson v. Virginia red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2016Ed. 2d 654 (1960), which held that “a conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314 . ¶20 In Jackson , the Court’s task was to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment due process standard recognized in Winship “constitutionally protects an accused against conviction except upon evidence that is sufficient fairly to support a conclusion that every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 313-14 . ¶21 The Court held that “an e 2016Ed. 2d 654 (1960), which held that “a conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314 . ¶20 In Jackson , the Court’s task was to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment due process standard recognized in Winship “constitutionally protects an accused against conviction except upon evidence that is sufficient fairly to support a conclusion that every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 313-14 . ¶21 The Court held that “an e	3	2013–2016
City of Spokane v. Douglass green wash · 1990 2 sentences 1997City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 176 , 795 P.2d 693 (1990). 1997City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 176 , 795 P.2d 693 (1990).	3	1993–1997
State v. Jones green washctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2013Although the right to be present originated in the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause applies where defendants are not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against them. 5 State v. Jones, 175 Wn. 2013App. 87, 105 , 303 P.3d 1084 (2013), petition for review filed, No. 89321-7 (Wash. Sept. 26, 2013). ¶13 In general, a stage of trial is “critical” if it presents a possibility of prejudice to the defendant.	2	2013–2013
State v. Dunn neutral wash · 1967 2 sentences 2002The court in Hodges follows the reasoning in Barnes and Franks. [35] Order Granting Review. [36] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (states are not required to indict felony defendants by use of a grand jury; the Fourteenth amendment due process clause does not prevent the use by a state of an information to charge a felony). [37] State v. Dunn, 70 Wash.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 136 , 19 L.Ed.2d 140 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wash.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981). [38] See RCW 10.37.050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see 2002The court in Hodges follows the reasoning in Barnes and Franks. [35] Order Granting Review. [36] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (states are not required to indict felony defendants by use of a grand jury; the Fourteenth amendment due process clause does not prevent the use by a state of an information to charge a felony). [37] State v. Dunn, 70 Wash.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 136 , 19 L.Ed.2d 140 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wash.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981). [38] See RCW 10.37.050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see	2	2002–2002
Berry v. Oliver green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2002The court in Hodges follows the reasoning in Barnes and Franks. [35] Order Granting Review. [36] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (states are not required to indict felony defendants by use of a grand jury; the Fourteenth amendment due process clause does not prevent the use by a state of an information to charge a felony). [37] State v. Dunn, 70 Wash.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 136 , 19 L.Ed.2d 140 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wash.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981). [38] See RCW 10.37.050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see 2002State v. Dunn, 70 Wn.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wn.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981).	2	2002–2002
State v. Haner green wash · 1981 2 sentences 2002The court in Hodges follows the reasoning in Barnes and Franks. [35] Order Granting Review. [36] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (states are not required to indict felony defendants by use of a grand jury; the Fourteenth amendment due process clause does not prevent the use by a state of an information to charge a felony). [37] State v. Dunn, 70 Wash.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 136 , 19 L.Ed.2d 140 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wash.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981). [38] See RCW 10.37.050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see 2002The court in Hodges follows the reasoning in Barnes and Franks. [35] Order Granting Review. [36] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (states are not required to indict felony defendants by use of a grand jury; the Fourteenth amendment due process clause does not prevent the use by a state of an information to charge a felony). [37] State v. Dunn, 70 Wash.2d 572 , 424 P.2d 897 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 136 , 19 L.Ed.2d 140 (1967); State v. Haner, 95 Wash.2d 858 , 631 P.2d 381 (1981). [38] See RCW 10.37.050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see	2	2002–2002
Benton v. Maryland green scotus · 1969 2 sentences 1986The constitutional guaranty binds the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause (Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 23 L. 1986The constitutional guaranty binds the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause (Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 23 L.	2	1971–1986
Klopfer v. North Carolina green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1985Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 , 18 L. 1985Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 , 18 L.	2	1970–1985
Amunrud v. Board of Appeals green wash · 2006 1 sentence 2024App. 45, 52 , 309 P.3d 1221 (2013) (quoting 20 No. 58113-2-II Amunrud, 158 Wn.2d at 216 ).	1	2024–2024
Nielsen v. Department of Licensing green washctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2024The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause “‘confers both procedural and substantive protections.’” Nielsen v. Dep’t of Licensing, 177 Wn. 2024App. 45, 52 , 309 P.3d 1221 (2013) (quoting 20 No. 58113-2-II Amunrud, 158 Wn.2d at 216 ).	1	2024–2024
Drope v. Missouri green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L. 2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L.	1	2020–2020
State v. Wicklund green wash · 1982 2 sentences 2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L. 2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L.	1	2020–2020
State v. Alexander green washctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2017App. 862, 683 P.2d 617 (1984). 61 Alexander, 76 Wn.	1	2017–2017
City of Everett v. Moore green washctapp · 1984 1 sentence 2017App. 862, 683 P.2d 617 (1984). 61 Alexander, 76 Wn.	1	2017–2017
State v. Vaughn green wash · 1984 1 sentence 2015The United States Supreme Court's decision in Perry is entirely consistent with the Washington Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Vaughn, 101 Wn.2d -13 No. 70296-3-1/14 604, 607-08, 682 P.2d 878 (1984), decided almost three decades earlier.	1	2015–2015
State v. Knowles green washctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2014App. 367, 373 , 957 P.2d 797 (1998)); see Virginia v. Black, outside the range of acceptable choices." (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 The First Amendment, by incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, bars a state from "abridging the freedom of speech." U.S. CONST. amend.	1	2014–2014
State v. Gregory red wash · 2006 1 sentence 2013The source of that problem is this court's decisions in State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989) and State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006).	1	2013–2013
State v. Camara red wash · 1989 2 sentences 2013The source of that problem is this court's decisions in State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989) and State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). 2013The source of that problem is this court's decisions in State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989) and State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006).	1	2013–2013
State v. Gregory red wash · 2006 1 sentence 2013The source of that problem is this court's decisions in State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989) and State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006).	1	2013–2013
Schaaf v. Highfield green wash · 1995 2 sentences 2013Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wn.2d 17, 21 , 896 P.2d 665 (1995). ¶12 Two clauses of the United States Constitution limit a state’s power to tax interstate commerce: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and (2) the “dormant” commerce clause implied by article I, section 8, clause 3. 2013Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wn.2d 17, 21 , 896 P.2d 665 (1995). ¶12 Two clauses of the United States Constitution limit a state’s power to tax interstate commerce: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and (2) the “dormant” commerce clause implied by article I, section 8, clause 3.	1	2013–2013
Malloy v. Hogan green scotus · 1964	1	2011–2011
Hurtado v. California green · 1884	1	2002–2002
Boyd v. United States red scotus · 1886	1	1982–1982
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States green scotus · 1920	1	1982–1982
Weeks v. United States red · 1914	1	1982–1982
State v. Grant green wash · 1978	1	1982–1982
Kentucky v. Whorton green scotus · 1979	1	1980–1980
Osborne v. Adams County green scotus · 1883	1	1977–1977
Civil Rights Cases green scotus · 1883	1	1977–1977
Faircloth v. Old National Bank neutral wash · 1976	1	1977–1977
Green v. United States green scotus · 1957	1	1971–1971
Hamilton v. Alabama green scotus · 1961	1	1966–1966

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.160 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 39 (1966–2024) CA 36 (1970–2025) IL 26 (1970–2026) TX 24 (1987–2019) PA 15 (1972–2023) CT 13 (1984–2016) OH 12 (1986–2018) MD 11 (1976–2010) NJ 9 (1979–2006) CO 8 (1989–2019) IA 7 (1977–2023) SC 7 (1984–2003) MI 7 (1964–2008) IN 6 (1970–2018) NM 6 (1979–2023) NY 6 (1972–1997) MA 6 (1989–2002) AZ 5 (1966–2004) ID 5 (1978–2020) MS 5 (1979–2007) KS 5 (1976–1996) FL 4 (1960–1996) MO 4 (1977–2021) MT 4 (1979–2021) NC 4 (1981–2006) WI 4 (1967–2016) WV 3 (1981–1998) MN 3 (1984–1988) VA 3 (1977–2001) HI 3 (1978–2009) LA 3 (1993–2016) TN 3 (1996–2020) ME 2 (2019–2019) AK 2 (1970–1974) GA 2 (1993–1997) WY 2 (1985–2006) AL 2 (1982–1988) VI 2 (1989–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check