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 1984–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Raul Dominguezgreen2 sentences2006As a matter of fact, we specifically state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient (citing Delmarter, 124 Wash.App. at 163-64 , 101 P.3d 111 , (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. at 675 , 935 P.2d 623 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based 2006App. at 675 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based on familiarity through prior use, trading, or law enforcement)). ¶22 But the problem here is the paucity of information supporting the officer’s identification of the white, rock-like items. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2006As a matter of fact, we specifically state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient (citing Delmarter, 124 Wash.App. at 163-64 , 101 P.3d 111 , (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. at 675 , 935 P.2d 623 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based 2006App. at 163-64 (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wn. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Colquittgreen1 sentence2026See id. at 800 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hundleygreen1 sentence2006See State v. Hundley, 126 Wash.2d 418, 420-21 , 895 P.2d 403 (1995) (conflicting test results). | 1 | 1 |
Dawson v. Hearing Committeegreen1 sentence1984See Dawson v. Hearing Comm., 92 Wn.2d at 398 . [3] Petitioner contends that the hearing committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that the cigarette before the committee was marijuana without the benefit of a laboratory analysis. | 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. Roche
green
2 sentences2006Roche, 114 Wash.App. at 428 , 59 P.3d 682 . ¶ 41 Roche is distinguishable for several reasons. 2006Roche, 114 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Rogers v. Dept. of Labor & Indus.
green
1 sentence2014App. 174, 180 , 210 P.3d 355 (2009). 6 Spring v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 96 Wn.2d 914, 920-21 , 640 P.2d 1 (1982). -5- NO. 71737-5-1/6 of an alleged controlled substance without a laboratory test, and (3) does the felony payment bar authorize the Department to deny a claim or only payments? | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hoss v. Hoge
green
1 sentence2014In a criminal prosecution, without a laboratory test, the State can establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of a controlled substance with lay testimony and circumstantial evidence.37 The same types of evidence can satisfy 35 Kissinger. 166 Wn.2d at 128 . 36 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Spring v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2014App. 174, 180 , 210 P.3d 355 (2009). 6 Spring v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 96 Wn.2d 914, 920-21 , 640 P.2d 1 (1982). -5- NO. 71737-5-1/6 of an alleged controlled substance without a laboratory test, and (3) does the felony payment bar authorize the Department to deny a claim or only payments? 2014App. 174, 180 , 210 P.3d 355 (2009). 6 Spring v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 96 Wn.2d 914, 920-21 , 640 P.2d 1 (1982). -5- NO. 71737-5-1/6 of an alleged controlled substance without a laboratory test, and (3) does the felony payment bar authorize the Department to deny a claim or only payments? | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2014In a criminal prosecution, without a laboratory test, the State can establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of a controlled substance with lay testimony and circumstantial evidence.37 The same types of evidence can satisfy 35 Kissinger. 166 Wn.2d at 128 . 36 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2014In a criminal prosecution, without a laboratory test, the State can establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of a controlled substance with lay testimony and circumstantial evidence.37 The same types of evidence can satisfy 35 Kissinger. 166 Wn.2d at 128 . 36 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2006As a matter of fact, we specifically state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient (citing Delmarter, 124 Wash.App. at 163-64 , 101 P.3d 111 , (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. at 675 , 935 P.2d 623 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Roche
green
1 sentence2006Roche, 114 Wash.App. at 428 , 59 P.3d 682 . ¶ 41 Roche is distinguishable for several reasons. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Delmarter
green
1 sentence2006As a matter of fact, we specifically state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient (citing Delmarter, 124 Wash.App. at 163-64 , 101 P.3d 111 , (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. at 675 , 935 P.2d 623 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Delmarter
green
1 sentence2006As a matter of fact, we specifically state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient (citing Delmarter, 124 Wash.App. at 163-64 , 101 P.3d 111 , (even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance); Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. at 675 , 935 P.2d 623 (circumstantial evidence and lay testimony may be sufficient to establish the identity of a controlled substance); and Dominguez, 992 F.2d at 681 (circumstantial evidence establishing a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt may include lay experience based | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.
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.