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 1971–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.green2 sentences1988See, e.g., Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 , 45 L. 1988See, e.g., Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 , 45 L. | 2 | 2 |
cluster 479002green1 sentence1988Cf. BSA, Inc. v. King Cy., 804 F.2d at 1111. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2017In finding Hamilton controlling and reversing the judgment without considering prejudice, the Court reasoned that “ ‘[o]nly the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently.’ ” Id. (quoting Hamilton, 368 U.S. at 55 ). 1 ¶28 As illustrated by the above-cited United States Supreme Court cases, the characterization of Sanchez’s hearing as an arraignment is not determinative of whether the hearing was a critical stage so that defense counsel’s absence was presumptively prejudicial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hamilton v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2017In finding Hamilton controlling and reversing the judgment without considering prejudice, the Court reasoned that “ ‘[o]nly the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently.’ ” Id. (quoting Hamilton, 368 U.S. at 55 ). 1 ¶28 As illustrated by the above-cited United States Supreme Court cases, the characterization of Sanchez’s hearing as an arraignment is not determinative of whether the hearing was a critical stage so that defense counsel’s absence was presumptively prejudicial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Barcom
green
1 sentence1992The well-established rule for this stage of the inquiry is "that absent an agreement expressly displacing existing law, the statute provided by the Legislature will pertain." Barcom, 112 Wn.2d at 579 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gilbert v. California
green
2 sentences1971Ed. 2d 1149 , 87 S. Ct. 1926 (1967) (requiring that the accused have counsel present at any *852 lineup where he is to be displayed, for identification purposes) ; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 18 L. 1971Ed. 2d 1149 , 87 S. Ct. 1926 (1967) (requiring that the accused have counsel present at any *852 lineup where he is to be displayed, for identification purposes) ; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 18 L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1971Appellant contends that this practice denied his right to counsel at a critical stage in violation of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 18 L. 1971Appellant contends that this practice denied his right to counsel at a critical stage in violation of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 18 L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.