21 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. Quarantillogreen1 sentence2024The justification for the exception lies in the assumption that “statements of family history ‘are likely to be informed by knowledge shared in common among family members on the basis of customs and understandings that are likely to be true.’ ” Porter v. Quarantillo, 722 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting 5 CHRISTOPHER B. | 1 | 1 |
Richau v. Raynergreen1 sentence2015See RCW 9At oral argument, Thomas hypothesized that an appropriate time to so restrict the substantial justification inquiry would be after discovery has been completed. -10- No. 71845-2-1/11 4.28.328(3); RAP 18.1; accord Richau v. Ravner, 98 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.green1 sentence1986Co., 557 F. Supp. 739, 825 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
Ricardo Santana v. Holiday Inns, Inc., Gene Johnson, Randy Scheets, Bruce Faltin as Employees Holiday Inns, Inc.green1 sentence1986The justification for the rule is "that once litigation has been instituted, a party should not be entitled to the protection of the statute of limitations against the later assertion of a claim or defense arising out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence already in dispute." Santana v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 686 F.2d 736, 738 (9th Cir. 1982); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Dawson Chem. | 1 | 1 |
Gregoire v. Biddlegreen2 sentences1974The justification for this immunity, as stated by Judge Learned Hand in Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1949), is that "it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties.... 1974The justification for this immunity, as stated by Judge Learned Hand in Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949), is that “it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. ... | 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. Paine
green
2 sentences2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). “‘A justification for the rule is that it tends to bring sentences into conformity and compliance with existing sentencing statutes and avoids permitting widely varying sentences to stand for no reason other than the failure of counsel to register a proper objection [before] the [sentencing] court.’” 20 No. 39765-3-III State v. Zimmerman Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 229 (quoting State v. Paine, 69 Wn. 2009In State v. Paine, the Court of Appeals aptly stated that: A justification for the rule is that it tends to bring sentences in conformity and compliance with existing sentencing statutes and avoids permitting widely varying sentences to stand for no reason other than the failure of counsel to register a proper objection in the trial court. 69 Wash.App. 873, 884 , 850 P.2d 1369 (1993). | 9 | 1996–2025 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). “‘A justification for the rule is that it tends to bring sentences into conformity and compliance with existing sentencing statutes and avoids permitting widely varying sentences to stand for no reason other than the failure of counsel to register a proper objection [before] the [sentencing] court.’” 20 No. 39765-3-III State v. Zimmerman Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 229 (quoting State v. Paine, 69 Wn. 2014Ford, 137 Wn.2d at 478 ; State v. Paine, 69 Wn. | 3 | 2014–2025 |
United States v. Anthony J. Paolello Anthony J. Paolello
green
2 sentences2010The government argued that Paolello could not assert a justification defense because he had been reckless in going to a disreputable bar and leaving the bar after the dispute over the drink, "even though he had reason to believe there would be trouble if he did that." Paolello, 951 F.2d at 541 . 2010The government argued that Paolello could not assert a justification defense because he had been reckless in going to a disreputable bar and leaving the bar after the dispute over the drink, “even though he had reason to believe there would be trouble if he did that.” Paolello, 951 F.2d at 541 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Strandberg
green
2 sentences2026State v. Strandberg, 223 Mont. 132, 135 , 724 P.2d 710 (1986). 2026State v. Strandberg, 223 Mont. 132, 135 , 724 P.2d 710 (1986). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). “‘A justification for the rule is that it tends to bring sentences into conformity and compliance with existing sentencing statutes and avoids permitting widely varying sentences to stand for no reason other than the failure of counsel to register a proper objection [before] the [sentencing] court.’” 20 No. 39765-3-III State v. Zimmerman Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 229 (quoting State v. Paine, 69 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999). “‘A justification for the rule is that it tends to bring sentences into conformity and compliance with existing sentencing statutes and avoids permitting widely varying sentences to stand for no reason other than the failure of counsel to register a proper objection [before] the [sentencing] court.’” 20 No. 39765-3-III State v. Zimmerman Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 229 (quoting State v. Paine, 69 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property
green
2 sentences2011Until seizure, particularly of movable personal goods, “ ‘it is impossible to ascertain what is the competent forum.’ ” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 57 , 114 S. Ct. 492 , 126 L. 2011Until seizure, particularly of movable personal goods, “ ‘it is impossible to ascertain what is the competent forum.’ ” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 57 , 114 S. Ct. 492 , 126 L. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lowery v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2011App. 747, 750 , 719 P.2d 594 , review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1013 (1986). ¶21 The justification for the rule that seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the initiation of in rem forfeiture proceedings is that property must be seized to fix and preserve in rem jurisdiction. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Vander Houwen
neutral
1 sentence2008Invited Error ¶24 The Court of Appeals held that because Vander Houwen also submitted the “necessity” instruction, he is estopped from complaining by the doctrine of invited error, Vander Houwen, 128 Wn. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Kerr
green
1 sentence2002State v. Kerr, 14 Wn. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1995Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L. 1995Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
New York v. Belton
red
1 sentence1995Ed. 2d 768 , 101 S. Ct. 2860 (1981). 1 The justification for this exception is the arresting officer’s need to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or obtaining a weapon. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Massey
green
2 sentences1986State v. Massey, 68 Wn.2d 88, 92 , 411 P.2d 422 , cert. denied, 385 U.S. 904 (1966). 1986State v. Massey, 68 Wn.2d 88, 92 , 411 P.2d 422 , cert. denied, 385 U.S. 904 (1966). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Massey v. Washington
green
2 sentences1986State v. Massey, 68 Wn.2d 88, 92 , 411 P.2d 422 , cert. denied, 385 U.S. 904 (1966). 1986State v. Massey, 68 Wn.2d 88, 92 , 411 P.2d 422 , cert. denied, 385 U.S. 904 (1966). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.