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 2011–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Charles
green
2 sentences2019"As a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, EHM addresses these concerns and furthers the intent of the original pretrial release rule because a defendant on EHM may visit his attorney and continue to go to a job." Harris , 171 Wash.2d at 469 , 256 P.3d 328 . ¶14 The Minority and Justice Commission proposed adding EHM as an alternative to be used with pretrial release to avoid discrimination based on people who are economically disadvantaged. 2019"As a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, EHM addresses these concerns and furthers the intent of the original pretrial release rule because a defendant on EHM may visit his attorney and continue to go to a job." Harris , 171 Wash.2d at 469 , 256 P.3d 328 . ¶14 The Minority and Justice Commission proposed adding EHM as an alternative to be used with pretrial release to avoid discrimination based on people who are economically disadvantaged. | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Perrett
green
2 sentences2011CrR 3.2 was meant to alleviate these burdens. ¶ 21 As a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, EHM addresses these concerns and furthers the intent of the original pretrial release rule because a defendant on EHM may visit his attorney and continue to go to a job. [9] State v. Perrett, 86 Wash.App. 312, 318-19 , 936 P.2d 426 (1997). 2011CrR 3.2 was meant to alleviate these burdens. ¶ 21 As a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, EHM addresses these concerns and furthers the intent of the original pretrial release rule because a defendant on EHM may visit his attorney and continue to go to a job. [9] State v. Perrett, 86 Wash.App. 312, 318-19 , 936 P.2d 426 (1997). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
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.