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.
900 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 178 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.green2 sentences2026“The abuse of discretion standard . . . recognizes that deference is owed to the judicial actor who is ‘better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 469 U.S. 384 , 403, 110 S. Ct. 2447 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 1990 )). 2026“The abuse of discretion standard . . . recognizes that deference is owed to the judicial actor who is ‘better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 469 U.S. 384 , 403, 110 S. Ct. 2447 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 1990 )). | 4 | 12 |
| State v. Myersgreen | 4 | 6 |
| Skagit Railway & Lumber Co. v. Colegreen | 4 | 4 |
State v. Sisouvanhgreen2 sentences2026Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision “(1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607 , 8 No. 39921-4-III State v. Kiernan 623, 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (quoting State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 830 , 845 P.2d 1017 (1993)). 2026Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision “(1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607 , 8 No. 39921-4-III State v. Kiernan 623, 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (quoting State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 830 , 845 P.2d 1017 (1993)). | 3 | 18 |
State v. Stensongreen2 sentences2014NO. 69918-1-1/4 We review decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.5 An abuse of discretion exists "[wjhen a trial court's exercise of its discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons."6 A discretionary decision "is based 'on untenable grounds' or made 'for untenable reasons' if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard."7 ANALYSIS Fentahun claims that the trial court should have excluded as testimonial hearsay a tape of the 911 call and Amanuel's statements to Drum 2014NO. 69918-1-1/4 We review decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.5 An abuse of discretion exists "[wjhen a trial court's exercise of its discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons."6 A discretionary decision "is based 'on untenable grounds' or made 'for untenable reasons' if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard."7 ANALYSIS Fentahun claims that the trial court should have excluded as testimonial hearsay a tape of the 911 call and Amanuel's statements to Drum | 3 | 15 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2009State v. Ferguson, 142 Wn.2d 631, 646 , 15 P.3d 1271 (2001). ¶37 We review an exceptional sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. 2009State v. Ferguson, 142 Wn.2d 631, 646 , 15 P.3d 1271 (2001). ¶37 We review an exceptional sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. | 3 | 12 |
State v. Arndtgreen2 sentences2026Properly raised, contentions that evidentiary rulings violated a defendant’s constitutional “right to present a defense” are reviewed pursuant to a two-step process, wherein appellate courts first review the challenged evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, then courts review de novo whether such whether such rulings violate a defendant’s constitutional “right to present a defense.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-812 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019). 2026Properly raised, contentions that evidentiary rulings violated a defendant’s constitutional “right to present a defense” are reviewed pursuant to a two-step process, wherein appellate courts first review the challenged evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, then courts review de novo whether such whether such rulings violate a defendant’s constitutional “right to present a defense.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-812 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019). | 2 | 18 |
State v. Oxborrowgreen2 sentences1993See State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wn.2d 525 , 723 P.2d 1123 (1986) (adopting an abuse of discretion standard based on the language of RCW 9.94A.010); see also State v. Stalker, 42 Wn. 1993See State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wn.2d 525 , 723 P.2d 1123 (1986) (adopting an abuse of discretion standard based on the language of RCW 9.94A.010); see also State v. Stalker, 42 Wn. | 2 | 18 |
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washingtongreen2 sentences2005Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Washington, 114 Wash.2d 677, 688-89 , 790 P.2d 604 (1990). 2005Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Washington, 114 Wash.2d 677, 688-89 , 790 P.2d 604 (1990). | 2 | 14 |
State v. Swangreen2 sentences2026“Appellate courts will carefully review the evidence and testimony presented in evaluating the exclusion and admission of child hearsay statements even under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 667 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990). 2026“Appellate courts will carefully review the evidence and testimony presented in evaluating the exclusion and admission of child hearsay statements even under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 667 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990). | 2 | 10 |
| State v. Jenningsgreen | 2 | 5 |
| In Re the Marriage of Landrygreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Hardestygreen | 2 | 4 |
State v. Brettgreen2 sentences2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)). 2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)). | 1 | 46 |
State v. Lindsaygreen2 sentences2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)). 2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)). | 1 | 31 |
State v. Thorgersongreen2 sentences2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no 2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no | 1 | 15 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2014NO. 69918-1-1/4 We review decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.5 An abuse of discretion exists "[wjhen a trial court's exercise of its discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons."6 A discretionary decision "is based 'on untenable grounds' or made 'for untenable reasons' if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard."7 ANALYSIS Fentahun claims that the trial court should have excluded as testimonial hearsay a tape of the 911 call and Amanuel's statements to Drum 2014NO. 69918-1-1/4 We review decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.5 An abuse of discretion exists "[wjhen a trial court's exercise of its discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons."6 A discretionary decision "is based 'on untenable grounds' or made 'for untenable reasons' if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard."7 ANALYSIS Fentahun claims that the trial court should have excluded as testimonial hearsay a tape of the 911 call and Amanuel's statements to Drum | 1 | 15 |
State v. Magersgreen2 sentences2020“A trial court’s determination that a hearsay exception applies is judged on an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Maqers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 187 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008). 2020“A trial court’s determination that a hearsay exception applies is judged on an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Maqers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 187 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008). | 1 | 12 |
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.yellow2 sentences2026“The abuse of discretion standard . . . recognizes that deference is owed to the judicial actor who is ‘better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 469 U.S. 384 , 403, 110 S. Ct. 2447 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 1990 )). 2026“The abuse of discretion standard . . . recognizes that deference is owed to the judicial actor who is ‘better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 469 U.S. 384 , 403, 110 S. Ct. 2447 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 1990 )). | 1 | 9 |
State v. Garzagreen2 sentences2018Sisouvanh, 175 Wash.2d at 621 -22 , 290 P.3d 942 (applying an abuse of discretion standard when "a determination is fact intensive and involves numerous factors to be weighed on a case-by-case basis" (citing In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wash.2d 123 , 127, 65 P.3d 664 (2003) ; State v. Garza, 150 Wash.2d 360 , 366, 77 P.3d 347 (2003) ) ). 2018Sisouvanh, 175 Wash.2d at 621 -22 , 290 P.3d 942 (applying an abuse of discretion standard when "a determination is fact intensive and involves numerous factors to be weighed on a case-by-case basis" (citing In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wash.2d 123 , 127, 65 P.3d 664 (2003) ; State v. Garza, 150 Wash.2d 360 , 366, 77 P.3d 347 (2003) ) ). | 1 | 9 |
| State v. Madsengreen | 1 | 6 |
| State v. Lordred | 1 | 6 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 6 |
| State v. Kwan Fai Makred | 1 | 6 |
| SAC Downtown Ltd. Partnership v. Kahngreen | 1 | 5 |
| State v. Briscoeraygreen | 1 | 5 |
| Bank of America, NA v. Millergreen | 1 | 5 |
| State v. Greshamgreen | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Hudlowgreen | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Robertsgreen | 1 | 4 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Glasmanngreen | 1 | 4 |
| State Of Washington v. Samuel Lee Irwingreen | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Breedlovegreen | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Law
green
2 sentences2020State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005). 2020State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005). | 12 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Nordby
green
2 sentences2001On review we ask “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence under a clearly erroneous standard, (2) whether as a matter of law the reasons justify an exceptional sentence, and (3) whether an exceptional sentence is clearly excessive under an abuse of discretion standard.” Halgren, 137 Wn.2d at 345 -46 (citing RCW 9.94A.210(4); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986)). 2001On review we ask “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence under a clearly erroneous standard, (2) whether as a matter of law the reasons justify an exceptional sentence, and (3) whether an exceptional sentence is clearly excessive under an abuse of discretion standard.” Halgren, 137 Wn.2d at 345 -46 (citing RCW 9.94A.210(4); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986)). | 12 | 1999–2003 |
State v. Rohrich
green
2 sentences2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 623 , 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)). 2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 623 , 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)). | 11 | 2006–2023 |
State v. France
green
2 sentences2025We reverse if “under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record” to support the exceptional sentence; “under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range”; or “under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.” France, 176 Wn. App. at 469 . 2021To reverse an exceptional sentence, we must conclude that: (1) under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence; (2) under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range; or (3) under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient. 6 State v. France, 176 Wn. App. 463, 469 , 308 P.3d 812 (2013); RCW 9.94A.585(4). | 10 | 2015–2025 |
Rivers v. STATE CONF. OF MASON CONTRACTORS
green
2 sentences2004Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the superior court's determination except upon a clear showing that the determination was "manifestly unreasonable" or was based upon "untenable grounds" or made for "untenable reasons." Rivers, 145 Wash.2d at 684 , 41 P.3d 1175 (quoting Burnet *427 v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)). 2004Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the superior court’s determination except upon a clear showing that the determination was “ ‘manifestly unreasonable’ ” or was based upon “ ‘untenable grounds’ ” or made for “ ‘untenable reasons.’ ” Rivers, 145 Wn.2d at 684 -85 (quoting Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)). | 10 | 2004–2024 |
State v. Valencia
green
2 sentences2018See id. at 652, 656 ; State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 791-92 , 239 P.3d 1059 (2010); State v. Cordero, 170 Wn. 2017We “apply an abuse of discretion standard of review, and if the condition is unconstitutionally vague, it will be manifestly unreasonable.” Valencia, 169 Wn.2d at 793 . | 10 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Pirtle
green
2 sentences2026Ordinarily, we review “a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). “[A]n erroneous evidentiary ruling does not result in reversal unless the defendant was prejudiced.” State v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 193 Wn. App. 683, 689 , 370 P.3d 989 (2016). 2026Ordinarily, we review “a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). “[A]n erroneous evidentiary ruling does not result in reversal unless the defendant was prejudiced.” State v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 193 Wn. App. 683, 689 , 370 P.3d 989 (2016). | 9 | 1997–2026 |
State v. Downing
green
2 sentences2026“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court’s decision should be upheld unless it is ‘manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” In re Est. of Black, 153 Wn.2d 152, 172 , 102 P.3d 796 (2004) - 20 - (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d 265, 272 , 87 P.3d 1169 (2004)). 2026“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court’s decision should be upheld unless it is ‘manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” In re Est. of Black, 153 Wn.2d 152, 172 , 102 P.3d 796 (2004) - 20 - (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d 265, 272 , 87 P.3d 1169 (2004)). | 9 | 2004–2026 |
State v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2018"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995) (citing State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 195 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986)). 2018"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995) (citing State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 195 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986)). | 9 | 1995–2018 |
State v. Hopson
green
2 sentences2018"This court applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the trial court's denial of a mistrial." State v. Rodriquez, 146 Wn.2d 260, 269 , 45 P.3d 541 (2002)(citing State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989)). 2018"This court applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the trial court's denial of a mistrial." State v. Rodriquez, 146 Wn.2d 260, 269 , 45 P.3d 541 (2002)(citing State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989)). | 8 | 1993–2025 |
Jannot v. Jannot
green
2 sentences2020An abuse of discretion standard is strongly supported by In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123, 126 , 65 P.3d 664 (2003), which held that adequate cause determinations in actions to modify a parenting plan are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, not de novo, even though they are based on affidavits that are equally available to the appellate court. 2020An abuse of discretion standard is strongly supported by In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123, 126 , 65 P.3d 664 (2003), which held that adequate cause determinations in actions to modify a parenting plan are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, not de novo, even though they are based on affidavits that are equally available to the appellate court. | 8 | 2012–2023 |
State v. Demery
green
2 sentences2026State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 758 , 30 P.3d 1278 (2001). 2026State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 758 , 30 P.3d 1278 (2001). | 7 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Ish
green
2 sentences2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no 2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no | 7 | 2015–2025 |
State v. Lane
green
2 sentences2025“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). 2025“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). | 7 | 1995–2025 |
State v. Ritchie
yellow
2 sentences2015State v. Ritchie, 126 Wn.2d 388, 395-96 , 894 P.2d 1308 (1995). 2015State v. Ritchie, 126 Wn.2d 388, 395-96 , 894 P.2d 1308 (1995). | 7 | 1996–2015 |
| State v. Pryor green | 7 | 1991–2003 |
| Ethridge v. Hwang green | 6 | 2006–2024 |
| State v. Cordero green | 6 | 2016–2018 |
| State v. Creekmore green | 6 | 1990–2007 |
| State v. Halgren green | 6 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Hurd neutral | 5 | 2004–2026 |
| State v. Blackwell green | 5 | 2001–2026 |
| State v. Quaale green | 5 | 2015–2025 |
| Dix v. ICT Group, Inc. green | 5 | 2008–2024 |
| State v. Finch green | 5 | 2003–2023 |
| In re the Marriage of Horner green | 5 | 2006–2021 |
| State v. McKenzie green | 5 | 2012–2020 |
| State v. Russell green | 5 | 2008–2020 |
| State v. Thomas yellow | 5 | 2008–2017 |
| Brand v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES green | 5 | 2002–2016 |
| State v. Johnson green | 5 | 1996–2016 |
| State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker green | 4 | 1993–2025 |
| State v. Emery green | 4 | 2018–2025 |
| Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis green | 4 | 2005–2024 |
| Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology green | 4 | 2003–2021 |
| In re the Marriage of Littlefield red | 4 | 2012–2021 |
| State v. Hemenway neutral | 4 | 2010–2018 |
| State v. Michielli green | 4 | 2003–2018 |
| State v. King green | 4 | 1996–2017 |
| State v. Cheatam green | 4 | 2007–2014 |
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.