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 1992–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia
red
2 sentences2007Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 , 111 S.Ct. 2439 , 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991) (holding that it is error to refuse to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case announcing the rule has already done so, "principles of equality and stare decisis here prevailing over any claim based on a Chevron Oil analysis"). 2007Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 , 111 S.Ct. 2439 , 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991) (holding that it is error to refuse to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case announcing the rule has already done so, "principles of equality and stare decisis here prevailing over any claim based on a Chevron Oil analysis"). | 3 | 1992–2007 |
DiCenzo v. A-Best Products Co.
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 157 , 897 N.E.2d 132 . ¶ 50 Like the New Mexico State Supreme Court, the Ohio court rejected the argument that if the case announcing the rule does not contain language imposing only prospective application, the rule was and continues to be retroactive. 2009Id. at 156-57 . ¶50 Like the New Mexico State Supreme Court, the Ohio court rejected the argument that if the case announcing the rule does not contain language imposing only prospective application, the rule was and continues to be retroactive. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Detention of Williams
green
2 sentences2009This was exactly what happened (or did not happen) in In re Detention of Williams, 147 Wash.2d 476 , 55 P.3d 597 (2002), the case announcing the rule that was at the center of the retroactivity-prospectivity question in Audett . 2009This was exactly what happened (or did not happen) in In re Detention of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476 , 55 P.3d 597 (2002), the case announcing the rule that was at the center of the retroactivity-prospectivity question in Audett. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In re the Detention of Williams
green
2 sentences2009This was exactly what happened (or did not happen) in In re Detention of Williams, 147 Wash.2d 476 , 55 P.3d 597 (2002), the case announcing the rule that was at the center of the retroactivity-prospectivity question in Audett . 2009This was exactly what happened (or did not happen) in In re Detention of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476 , 55 P.3d 597 (2002), the case announcing the rule that was at the center of the retroactivity-prospectivity question in Audett. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
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.