decisional standard (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

decisional standard in Washington

5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2015 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Troxel v. Granvillegreen
scotus · 2000 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Id. at 68-69 (citations omitted). ¶21 The Court’s holding emerges in the next paragraph: The decisional framework employed by the Superior Court directly contravened the traditional presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of his or her child.

2005Id. at 68-69 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 (citations omitted). ¶ 21 The Court's holding emerges in the next paragraph: The decisional framework employed by the Superior Court directly contravened the traditional presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of his or her child.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
In re the Personal Restraint of Haghighi green
wash · 2013
1 sentence

2015Haghighi, 178 Wn.2d at 443 . ¶58 Concerning the first element, we define “finality” as the point at which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certio-rari finally denied.

12015–2015
State v. Rupe green
wash · 1987
2 sentences

1990Moreover, as this court noted in State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 770 , 743 P.2d 210 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 (1988), all possible mitigating factors were before the jury.

1990Moreover, as this court noted in State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 770 , 743 P.2d 210 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 (1988), all possible mitigating factors were before the jury.

11990–1990
State v. Wanrow green
wash · 1977
2 sentences

1990He maintains that conflict on a material issue, the decisional standard, requires reversal, relying upon, among other cases, State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 239 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977).

1990He maintains that conflict on a material issue, the decisional standard, requires reversal, relying upon, among other cases, State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 239 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977).

11990–1990
Lynaugh v. Cordova green
scotus · 1988
2 sentences

1990Moreover, as this court noted in State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 770 , 743 P.2d 210 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 (1988), all possible mitigating factors were before the jury.

1990Moreover, as this court noted in State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 770 , 743 P.2d 210 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 (1988), all possible mitigating factors were before the jury.

11990–1990
Godfrey v. Washington green
wash · 1975
2 sentences

1976If applicable at all, they support only the rule that the change made in an opinion is retroactively applicable to the case in which the change is adopted (Memel v. Reimer, supra, Freehe v. Freehe, supra, and Blaak v. Davidson, supra); or, that a statute enacted by the legislature is deemed to have retroactive application if such legislative intent is found (Godfrey v. State, 84 Wn.2d 959 , 530 P.2d 630 (1975)).

1976If applicable at all, they support only the rule that the change made in an opinion is retroactively applicable to the case in which the change is adopted (Memel v. Reimer, supra, Freehe v. Freehe, supra, and Blaak v. Davidson, supra); or, that a statute enacted by the legislature is deemed to have retroactive application if such legislative intent is found (Godfrey v. State, 84 Wn.2d 959 , 530 P.2d 630 (1975)).

11976–1976

Where else courts name it

CA 17 (1960–2023) NY 13 (1963–2002) AL 8 (2000–2011) PA 8 (1972–2017) NJ 6 (1997–2024) IL 5 (1974–2013) WA 5 (1976–2015) VA 4 (1989–2014) MI 4 (1962–1984) OR 4 (2005–2014) MS 3 (2001–2025) KS 3 (2001–2001) DE 3 (1953–2025) MO 3 (1972–2002) OK 2 (1981–1981) FL 2 (1969–1976) CO 2 (2015–2015) IN 2 (1976–2010) MD 2 (2006–2006)

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