Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2017 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Of Washington v. Michael Christopher Sheltongreen1 sentence2017See Shelton, 194 Wn.App. at 670 ; State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531, 536 , 354 P.3d 832 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vladovicgreen2 sentences2012Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d at 436 (Utter, J, concurring in part, dissenting in part). 2012Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d at 436 (Utter, J, concurring in part, dissenting in part). | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences1982At one end of the range is the case where the defendant has simply, although excusably, not had the benefit of evidence that has later become available to him; there the Berry test [ Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 527 (1851)] requires a showing that the new evidence "would probably produce a different verdict." At the other end of the range is the case of a defendant being obliged to plead to a capital charge without benefit of counsel; there the court "does not stop to inquire whether prejudice resulted." Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159 (1961). 1982At one end of the range is the case where the defendant has simply, although excusably, not had the benefit of evidence that has later become available to him; there the Berry test [ Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 527 (1851)] requires a showing that the new evidence "would probably produce a different verdict." At the other end of the range is the case of a defendant being obliged to plead to a capital charge without benefit of counsel; there the court "does not stop to inquire whether prejudice resulted." Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1982At one end of the range is the case where the defendant has simply, although excusably, not had the benefit of evidence that has later become available to him; there the Berry test [ Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 527 (1851)] requires a showing that the new evidence "would probably produce a different verdict." At the other end of the range is the case of a defendant being obliged to plead to a capital charge without benefit of counsel; there the court "does not stop to inquire whether prejudice resulted." Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159 (1961). 1982At one end of the range is the case where the defendant has simply, although excusably, not had the benefit of evidence that has later become available to him; there the Berry test [ Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 527 (1851)] requires a showing that the new evidence "would probably produce a different verdict." At the other end of the range is the case of a defendant being obliged to plead to a capital charge without benefit of counsel; there the court "does not stop to inquire whether prejudice resulted." Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cates
green
2 sentences2017See Shelton, 194 Wn.App. at 670 ; State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531, 536 , 354 P.3d 832 (2015). 2017See Shelton, 194 Wn.App. at 670 ; State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531, 536 , 354 P.3d 832 (2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kansas v. Crane
green
2 sentences2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no 2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Detention of Post
green
2 sentences2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no 2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re the Detention of Thorell
green
1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Detention of Thorell
green
1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gregory
red
1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gregory
red
1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re the Detention of Post
green
1 sentence2011NOTES [1] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). [2] 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). [3] 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [4] See Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 17, 2009) at 326-333 (testimony of Dr. Phenix). [5] 145 Wash.App. 728, 754-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (2008). [6] Id. at 755-56, 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). [7] State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 830 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [8] In denying Berry's motion, the court expressed its reasoning as follows: "[W]ith respect to the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified and whether or no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
green
2 sentences1979Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 88 Wn.2d 917 , 568 P.2d 771 (1977); Kness v. Truck Trailer Equip. 1979Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 88 Wn.2d 917 , 568 P.2d 771 (1977); Kness v. Truck Trailer Equip. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Praytor v. King County
neutral
2 sentences1979Relying on Praytor v. King County, 69 Wn.2d 637 , 419 P.2d 797 (1966), Coleman argues that the trial court erred in granting Berry's motion because the test for "newly discovered evidence" (CR 59(a)(4)) was not met. 1979Relying on Praytor v. King County, 69 Wn.2d 637 , 419 P.2d 797 (1966), Coleman argues that the trial court erred in granting Berry's motion because the test for "newly discovered evidence" (CR 59(a)(4)) was not met. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.