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 1 courts 2010–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kinggreen1 sentence2014The DeCourseys assert that we review the recusal issue de novo, citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010) ("Questions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo."). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kinggreen1 sentence2014The DeCourseys assert that we review the recusal issue de novo, citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010) ("Questions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo."). | 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. Hicks
green
2 sentences2010State v. Hicks, 102 Wn.2d 182, 187 , 683 P.2d 186 (1984). ¶23 The parties dispute whether this claim can be raised initially on appeal. 2010State v. Hicks, 102 Wn.2d 182, 187 , 683 P.2d 186 (1984). ¶23 The parties dispute whether this claim can be raised initially on appeal. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Because the trial court granted Fireman's motion after the entry of the jury's verdict—and entered findings of fact after reviewing the entire record—we apply the abuse of discretion standard. - 47 - No. 74717-7-1/48 are two primary purposes behind the doctrine: preservation of respect for judicial proceedings and avoidance of inconsistency, duplicity, and waste of time." Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 861 , 281 P.3d 289 (2012). 2018Because the trial court granted Fireman's motion after the entry of the jury's verdict—and entered findings of fact after reviewing the entire record—we apply the abuse of discretion standard. - 47 - No. 74717-7-1/48 are two primary purposes behind the doctrine: preservation of respect for judicial proceedings and avoidance of inconsistency, duplicity, and waste of time." Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 861 , 281 P.3d 289 (2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Miller
green
1 sentence2014And although “[t]he decision may be unwise,... it is still a decision for the legislative body to make, not this court.” Miller, 156 Wn.2d at 418 . ¶52 Preliminarily, the parties dispute the standard of review. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.