128 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2026 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2015Id.; In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973); see also Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754 . 13 In this case, we must determine whether a guardianship established under the new statute requires a heightened standard of proof because its effect is similar to the termination of parental rights or whether the preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient because the effect of a guardianship under the new statute is the same or similar to guardianships established under the old statute. ¶26 T.P. alleges three important differences in the new statute that should afford parents t 2015See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 763 (noting that the State has a superior ability to prepare its case). ¶46 Because parents are provided significant procedural safeguards and a guardianship order is terminable and modifiable, the preponderance of the evidence standard fairly allocates the risk of an erroneous fact-finding between the State and the parent. 3. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Hunleygreen2 sentences2023Although “the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’” Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999)). 2022While the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’ Further, unless convicted pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant has ‘no obligation to present the court with evidence of his criminal history.’ State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Ammonsgreen2 sentences2024The Ammons court held, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, “the identity 14 84550-1-I/15 of names is sufficient proof” to support the sentence enhancement, but a defendant could rebut that evidence with a “declaration under oath that he is not the same person named in the prior conviction.” Id. at 190 . 2012You’re entitled, certainly, to make any comments here in court that you want me to listen to and consider in imposing a sentence.” RP at 305-06. ¶17 Second, Ammons held that “the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is not required and affirm [ed] the SRA’s adoption of a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at 185 . | 2 | 4 |
In Re the Detention of LaBellegreen2 sentences2016When we review factual findings that must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, as here, “the fact at issue must be shown to be ‘highly probable.’ "Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d at 11 (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)); Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 926-27 (declining to adopt a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof); In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 209 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986) (“[W]here the State must prove its case by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the evidence must be more substantial than in the ordinary civil case in which proof need only 2016When we review factual findings that must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, as here, “the fact at issue must be shown to be ‘highly probable.’ "Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d at 11 (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)); Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 926-27 (declining to adopt a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof); In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 209 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986) (“[W]here the State must prove its case by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the evidence must be more substantial than in the ordinary civil case in which proof need only | 2 | 3 |
| Hauswirth v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Humphries v. County of Los Angelesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Hallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re the Estate of Petersgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Gardner's Estategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentistsgreen | 2 | 2 |
Nguyen v. Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2009Bonneville is wrong on the standard the hearing examiner used; he actually applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. ¶34 Most civil cases apply the preponderance standard, but "the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof." Mansour v. King County, 131 Wash.App. 255, 265-66 , 128 P.3d 1241 (2006) (citing Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash.2d 516, 524 , 29 P.3d 689 (2001)). 2009“Thus, the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof.” Nguyen, 144 Wn.2d at 524 . ¶35 At the low end of the protective spectrum is the preponderance of the evidence standard traditionally used in civil actions for damages, in which litigants “ ‘share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion’ ” because society has minimal interest in the outcome of these private disputes. | 1 | 5 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2011According to the legislature, the preponderance of the evidence standard was the proper evidentiary burden to place on the Department. ¶ 11 Hardee argues that constitutional due process requires a clear and convincing evidentiary standard. [7] "The function of a standard of proof ... is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'" Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 2011According to the legislature, the preponderance of the evidence standard was the proper evidentiary burden to place on the Department. ¶ 11 Hardee argues that constitutional due process requires a clear and convincing evidentiary standard. [7] "The function of a standard of proof ... is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'" Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. | 1 | 4 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2019In Winship , the United States Supreme Court held the preponderance of the evidence standard was insufficient to convict a juvenile of a crime, reasoning that " '[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " as those rules were " 'developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.' " 397 U.S. at 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 (alteration in original) (quoting Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 174, 69 S. Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ); see also State v. Watkins, 191 Wash.2d 530 , 537, 423 P.3d 830 ( 2019In Winship , the United States Supreme Court held the preponderance of the evidence standard was insufficient to convict a juvenile of a crime, reasoning that " '[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " as those rules were " 'developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.' " 397 U.S. at 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 (alteration in original) (quoting Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 174, 69 S. Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ); see also State v. Watkins, 191 Wash.2d 530 , 537, 423 P.3d 830 ( | 1 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024Id. (“The result of a proceeding can be rendered unreliable, and hence . . . unfair, even if the errors of counsel cannot be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have determined the outcome.”); State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 , 458, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (“‘reasonable probability’ is lower than a preponderance standard” (emphasis added) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ; State v. Jones, 183 Wn.2d 327, 339 , 352 P.3d 776 (2015))). 6 State v. Bertrand (Andrew Wesley), No. 100953-4 (Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in result of dissent) Bertrand showed just such prejudice from his trial lawy 2024Id. (“The result of a proceeding can be rendered unreliable, and hence . . . unfair, even if the errors of counsel cannot be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have determined the outcome.”); State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 , 458, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (“‘reasonable probability’ is lower than a preponderance standard” (emphasis added) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ; State v. Jones, 183 Wn.2d 327, 339 , 352 P.3d 776 (2015))). 6 State v. Bertrand (Andrew Wesley), No. 100953-4 (Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in result of dissent) Bertrand showed just such prejudice from his trial lawy | 1 | 2 |
Department of Social & Health Services v. T.P.green2 sentences2024App. 530, 537 , 731 P.2d 537 (1987); see also In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 710 , 344 P.3d 1186 (2015) (holding the preponderance of the evidence standard was constitutionally adequate in the guardianship statutes). 2016W, 182 Wn.2d 689 , 701-7l0, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015) (discussing dependencies in holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard in the guardianship statute satisfies due process); In re Marriage of Wehr, 165 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Schermer v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2016See in re Dependency a/Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927, 942-943 , 169 P.3d 452 (2007); In re Welfare 0/J.K., 49 Wn. 2011Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 ; Chubb, 46 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Paulgreen2 sentences2015The preponderance of the evidence standard is a burden of persuasion, and its purpose “is to define how certain the trier of fact must be before resolving an issue of fact in favor of the party having the burden of proof.” Paul, 64 Wn. 2012App. 801, 805 , 828 P.2d 594 (1992) (holding that the standard for determining a petition for conditional release is the preponderance of the evidence standard); Hurst, 173 Wn.2d at 604-05 (holding that the standard of proof required to commit an incompetent criminal defendant charged with a felony to a third mental health treatment and restoration period is the preponderance of the evidence standard). | 1 | 2 |
| In Re Personal Restraint of Hallgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hughesred | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Braselgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hughesred | 1 | 2 |
| People in Interest of AMDgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Erlinger v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Juan Manuel Ibarragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Welfare of Sego
green
2 sentences2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. 2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. | 9 | 1998–2024 |
Mohr v. Grant
green
2 sentences2026RCW 71.05.240(4)(a). “ ‘The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.’ ” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (quoting Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822 , 108 P.3d 768 (2005)). 2025“The State bears the burden of showing a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 380 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007). “ ‘The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.’ ” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (quoting Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822 , 108 P.3d 768 (2005)). | 7 | 2015–2026 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2023Although “the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’” Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999)). 2021“While the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’” Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999)). | 7 | 2000–2023 |
Mohr v. Grant
green
2 sentences2026RCW 71.05.240(4)(a). “ ‘The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.’ ” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (quoting Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822 , 108 P.3d 768 (2005)). 2025“The State bears the burden of showing a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 380 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007). “ ‘The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.’ ” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (quoting Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822 , 108 P.3d 768 (2005)). | 6 | 2015–2026 |
Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR.
green
2 sentences2009Bonneville is wrong on the standard the hearing examiner used; he actually applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. ¶34 Most civil cases apply the preponderance standard, but "the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof." Mansour v. King County, 131 Wash.App. 255, 265-66 , 128 P.3d 1241 (2006) (citing Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash.2d 516, 524 , 29 P.3d 689 (2001)). 2009"Thus, the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof." Nguyen, 144 Wash.2d at 524 , 29 P.3d 689 . ¶ 35 At the low end of the protective spectrum is the preponderance of the evidence standard traditionally used in civil actions for damages, in which litigants "`share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion'" because society has minimal interest in the outcome of these private disputes. | 5 | 2006–2011 |
Department of Social & Health Services v. Bissett
green
2 sentences2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. 2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. | 4 | 2013–2024 |
Chubb v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2024App. 530, 537 , 731 P.2d 537 (1987); see also In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 710 , 344 P.3d 1186 (2015) (holding the preponderance of the evidence standard was constitutionally adequate in the guardianship statutes). 2011Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 ; Chubb, 46 Wn. | 4 | 1992–2024 |
Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2014During its September 2011 meeting, the Board considered changing its regulation to require a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in light of our decision in Hardee v. Dep 't of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011). 2014During its September 2011 meeting, the Board considered changing its regulation to require a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in light of our decision in Hardee v. Dep 't of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011). | 4 | 2014–2023 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2023Although “the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’” Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999)). 2021“While the preponderance of the evidence standard is ‘not overly difficult to meet,’ the State must at least introduce ‘evidence of some kind to support the alleged criminal history.’” Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 480 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999)). | 4 | 2000–2023 |
State v. Bertrand
green
2 sentences2026Id. 2025Id. | 3 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Guloy
green
2 sentences2026State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 420 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). 1995Although there is language to this eifect in State v. Dictado, 102 Wn.2d 277, 284 , 687 P.2d 172 (1984), Guloy , which was decided after Dictado , clearly holds that the preponderance of the evidence standard is to be used in determining whether a defendant is a member of a conspiracy. 104 Wn.2d at 420 . | 3 | 1995–2026 |
In Re the Marriage of Wehr
neutral
2 sentences2024The parent attempting to rebut the presumption must meet a preponderance of the evidence standard, under the theory that “both parents in a relocation dispute have a substantial right to parent their child.” In re Marriage of Wehr, 165 Wn. 2016W, 182 Wn.2d 689 , 701-7l0, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015) (discussing dependencies in holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard in the guardianship statute satisfies due process); In re Marriage of Wehr, 165 Wn. | 3 | 2015–2024 |
Thompson v. Department of Licensing
green
2 sentences2010And under WAC 415-08-420, "[t]he person appealing or requesting a hearing shall have the burden of proof in the matter." This rule places the burden on Fox to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he worked the requisite number of hours over five consecutive months. [6] See Thompson v. State Dep't of Licensing, 138 Wash.2d 783, 797 , 982 P.2d 601 (1999) (unless a statute or due process requires a different quantum of proof, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to resolve disputes in administrative proceedings). 2009And under WAC 415-08-420, “[t]he person appealing or requesting a hearing shall have the burden of proof in the matter.” This rule places the burden on Fox to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he worked the requisite number of hours over five consecutive months. 6 See Thompson v. Dep’t of Licensing, 138 Wn.2d 783, 797 , 982 P.2d 601 (1999) (unless a statute or due process requires a different quantum of proof, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to resolve disputes in administrative proceedings). | 3 | 2009–2019 |
Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing
green
2 sentences2010And under WAC 415-08-420, "[t]he person appealing or requesting a hearing shall have the burden of proof in the matter." This rule places the burden on Fox to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he worked the requisite number of hours over five consecutive months. [6] See Thompson v. State Dep't of Licensing, 138 Wash.2d 783, 797 , 982 P.2d 601 (1999) (unless a statute or due process requires a different quantum of proof, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to resolve disputes in administrative proceedings). 2009And under WAC 415-08-420, “[t]he person appealing or requesting a hearing shall have the burden of proof in the matter.” This rule places the burden on Fox to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he worked the requisite number of hours over five consecutive months. 6 See Thompson v. Dep’t of Licensing, 138 Wn.2d 783, 797 , 982 P.2d 601 (1999) (unless a statute or due process requires a different quantum of proof, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to resolve disputes in administrative proceedings). | 3 | 2009–2019 |
Cooper v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2010The use of a preponderance of the evidence standard for determination of incompetency is in accord with the United State Supreme Court's holding in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (overruling Oklahoma statute that imposed clear and convincing standard of proof on a defendant who asserts incompetency). [9] U.S. CONST. 2010The use of a preponderance of the evidence standard for determination of incompetency is in accord with the United State Supreme Court's holding in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (overruling Oklahoma statute that imposed clear and convincing standard of proof on a defendant who asserts incompetency). [9] U.S. CONST. | 3 | 2010–2012 |
Mansour v. King County
green
2 sentences2009Bonneville is wrong on the standard the hearing examiner used; he actually applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. ¶34 Most civil cases apply the preponderance standard, but "the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof." Mansour v. King County, 131 Wash.App. 255, 265-66 , 128 P.3d 1241 (2006) (citing Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash.2d 516, 524 , 29 P.3d 689 (2001)). 2008Bonneville is wrong on the standard the hearing examiner used; he actually applied a preponderance of the evidence standard. ¶34 Most civil cases apply the preponderance standard, but “the more important the decision, the higher the burden of proof.” Mansour v. King County, 131 Wn. | 3 | 2008–2011 |
In Re KR
green
2 sentences2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. 2024“Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable.’” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141 , 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true.” In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Brinegar v. United States
green
2 sentences2019In Winship , the United States Supreme Court held the preponderance of the evidence standard was insufficient to convict a juvenile of a crime, reasoning that " '[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " as those rules were " 'developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.' " 397 U.S. at 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 (alteration in original) (quoting Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 174, 69 S. Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ); see also State v. Watkins, 191 Wash.2d 530 , 537, 423 P.3d 830 ( 2019In Winship , the United States Supreme Court held the preponderance of the evidence standard was insufficient to convict a juvenile of a crime, reasoning that " '[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " as those rules were " 'developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.' " 397 U.S. at 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 (alteration in original) (quoting Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 174, 69 S. Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ); see also State v. Watkins, 191 Wash.2d 530 , 537, 423 P.3d 830 ( | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re the Welfare of Hall
green
2 sentences2019In re Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 849 , 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). 2019In re Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 849 , 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). | 2 | 2015–2019 |
| Mathews v. Eldridge green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| DeLuca v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| Mansour v. King County green | 2 | 2008–2009 |
| State v. Womac green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Womac green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Pillatos green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Apprendi v. New Jersey green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Ortega green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Wilcox green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. D.H. green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Born v. Thompson green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Camer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Jones v. United States green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Dunner v. McLaughlin green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Taylor green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re the Estate of Neubert green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Culpepper v. Snohomish County Department of Planning neutral | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| In re the Detention of M.K. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Alleyne v. United States green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Broadaway green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.