26 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sublettgreen2 sentences2014Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (lead opinion), 94 (Madsen, C.J., concurring), 136 (Stephens, J., concurring); see also id. at 73-74 (citing Press-Enter. 2014Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (lead opinion), 94 (Madsen, C.J., concurring), 136 (Stephens, J., concurring); see also id. at 73-74 (citing Press-Enter. | 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. Bone-Club
green
2 sentences2016Trial courts assess these competing interests by using the five factor analysis articulated in State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 258-59 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 2015In general, this right requires that certain proceedings be held in open court unless application of the five- factor test set forth in State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 258 -59, 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995), supports closure of the courtroom. | 15 | 2013–2016 |
State v. Bone-Club
green
2 sentences2016Trial courts assess these competing interests by using the five factor analysis articulated in State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 258-59 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 2015In general, this right requires that certain proceedings be held in open court unless application of the five- factor test set forth in State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 258 -59, 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995), supports closure of the courtroom. | 14 | 2013–2016 |
Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa
green
2 sentences2008To the extent documents in court files are intended to inform a judicial decision, they are presumed open. [5] But such records may be sealed when "other significant and fundamental rights" override the public interest in open records. [6] ¶ 8 In Rufer v. Abbott Laboratories [7] and Dreiling v. Jain, [8] the Supreme Court clarified the procedures and standards for sealing court records, and reiterated the five factor test from Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982): a showing of the need for closure, notice to interested parties, use of the least restrictive means a 2008To the extent documents in court files are intended to inform a judicial decision, they are presumed open. [5] But such records may be sealed when "other significant and fundamental rights" override the public interest in open records. [6] ¶ 8 In Rufer v. Abbott Laboratories [7] and Dreiling v. Jain, [8] the Supreme Court clarified the procedures and standards for sealing court records, and reiterated the five factor test from Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982): a showing of the need for closure, notice to interested parties, use of the least restrictive means a | 4 | 2008–2013 |
State v. Lord
green
2 sentences2017State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 873 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991). 2017State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 873 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Wise
green
2 sentences2016Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 10 . 2016Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 10 . | 2 | 2013–2016 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2016State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 222-223 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981). 2016State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 222-223 , 634 P.2d 868 (1981). | 2 | 2013–2016 |
McRae v. Bolstad
green
2 sentences2007Id. ¶ 48 In clarifying the public interest element, Hangman Ridge announced two new elements of a CPA claim. 2007Id. ¶48 In clarifying the public interest element, Hangman Ridge announced two new elements of a CPA claim. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Love
green
1 sentence2015Love, 176 Wn. | 1 | 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.
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.