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 2005–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schelingreen2 sentences2015See State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 435 , 173 P.3d 245 (2007) (adherence to judicially imposed nexus analysis harmonizes the imposition of mandatory deadly weapon/firearm sentence enhancements with the constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Schelin, 147 Wn.2d 562, 575 , 55 P.3d 632 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“Requiring a nexus between the defendant, the crime, and the weapon protects against violation of the right to bear arms.”). ¶45 As for the obstruction statute at issue here, we observed in Williams, “Our constitution puts constraints on the State and guarantees certain protections a 2015See State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 435 , 173 P.3d 245 (2007) (adherence to judicially imposed nexus analysis harmonizes the imposition of mandatory deadly weapon/firearm sentence enhancements with the constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Schelin, 147 Wn.2d 562, 575 , 55 P.3d 632 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“Requiring a nexus between the defendant, the crime, and the weapon protects against violation of the right to bear arms.”). ¶45 As for the obstruction statute at issue here, we observed in Williams, “Our constitution puts constraints on the State and guarantees certain protections a | 3 | 5 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2015See State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 435 , 173 P.3d 245 (2007) (adherence to judicially imposed nexus analysis harmonizes the imposition of mandatory deadly weapon/firearm sentence enhancements with the constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Schelin, 147 Wn.2d 562, 575 , 55 P.3d 632 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“Requiring a nexus between the defendant, the crime, and the weapon protects against violation of the right to bear arms.”). ¶45 As for the obstruction statute at issue here, we observed in Williams, “Our constitution puts constraints on the State and guarantees certain protections a 2015See State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 435 , 173 P.3d 245 (2007) (adherence to judicially imposed nexus analysis harmonizes the imposition of mandatory deadly weapon/firearm sentence enhancements with the constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Schelin, 147 Wn.2d 562, 575 , 55 P.3d 632 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“Requiring a nexus between the defendant, the crime, and the weapon protects against violation of the right to bear arms.”). ¶45 As for the obstruction statute at issue here, we observed in Williams, “Our constitution puts constraints on the State and guarantees certain protections a | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2015Our continued interpretation of obstruction statutes as requiring some conduct ensures these constitutional limits are maintained." 171 Wn.2d at 486 . 2015Our continued interpretation of obstruction statutes as requiring some conduct ensures these constitutional limits are maintained.” 171 Wn.2d at 486 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
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.