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.
21 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Marriage of Cavengreen2 sentences2016Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 . ¶11 Restrictions on a parent’s decision-making and residential time are mandatory if the trial court finds that the parent has “a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm.” RCW 26.09.191(1 )(c) (reviser’s note omitted); see In re Marriage of Caven, 136 Wn.2d 800, 808 , 966 P.2d 1247 (1998); see also In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. 2016Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 . ¶11 Restrictions on a parent’s decision-making and residential time are mandatory if the trial court finds that the parent has “a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm.” RCW 26.09.191(1 )(c) (reviser’s note omitted); see In re Marriage of Caven, 136 Wn.2d 800, 808 , 966 P.2d 1247 (1998); see also In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Mansourgreen1 sentence2016Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 . ¶11 Restrictions on a parent’s decision-making and residential time are mandatory if the trial court finds that the parent has “a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm.” RCW 26.09.191(1 )(c) (reviser’s note omitted); see In re Marriage of Caven, 136 Wn.2d 800, 808 , 966 P.2d 1247 (1998); see also In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. | 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 the Marriage of Littlefield
red
2 sentences2018A court’s ruling is manifestly unreasonable when it is “ ‘outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and applicable legal standard.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .) A superior court ruling also constitutes abuse of discretion “ ‘if it 31 No. 49951-7-II is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.’ ” Id. at 899-900 (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .). 2018A court’s ruling is manifestly unreasonable when it is “ ‘outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and applicable legal standard.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .) A superior court ruling also constitutes abuse of discretion “ ‘if it 31 No. 49951-7-II is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.’ ” Id. at 899-900 (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .). | 9 | 2015–2026 |
Harden v. Hester
green
2 sentences2022In re Parenting of L.H., 198 Wn. App. 190, 194 , 391 P.3d 490 (2016). 2019A trial court’s decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices considering the facts and applicable legal standard, it is based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are not supported by the record, and it is based on untenable reasons if it applies an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard L__.__ljl__, 198 Wn. | 4 | 2019–2022 |
In Re Custody of Halls
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re the Custody of Halls
green
2 sentences2018In re Halls, 126 Wn. 2018In re Halls, 126 Wn. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re the Marriage of Bowen
green
2 sentences2017A decision is manifestly unreasonable when, given the facts and applicable legal standard, “‘it is outside the range of acceptable choices.’” Bowen, 168 Wn. 2017Id. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Marriage of Horner
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gilmore v. Jefferson County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area
green
2 sentences2023Benefit Area, 190 Wn.2d 483, 494 , 415 P.3d 212 (2018) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salgado-Mendoza, 189 Wn.2d 420 , 427, 403 P.3d 45 (2017)); see also In re Parenting & Support of C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d 21 , 26, 522 P.3d 75 (2022) (“A decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices considering the facts and applicable legal standard.”). 2023Benefit Area, 190 Wn.2d 483, 494 , 415 P.3d 212 (2018) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salgado-Mendoza, 189 Wn.2d 420 , 427, 403 P.3d 45 (2017)); see also In re Parenting & Support of C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d 21 , 26, 522 P.3d 75 (2022) (“A decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices considering the facts and applicable legal standard.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Salgado-Mendoza
green
2 sentences2023Benefit Area, 190 Wn.2d 483, 494 , 415 P.3d 212 (2018) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salgado-Mendoza, 189 Wn.2d 420 , 427, 403 P.3d 45 (2017)); see also In re Parenting & Support of C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d 21 , 26, 522 P.3d 75 (2022) (“A decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices considering the facts and applicable legal standard.”). 2023Benefit Area, 190 Wn.2d 483, 494 , 415 P.3d 212 (2018) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salgado-Mendoza, 189 Wn.2d 420 , 427, 403 P.3d 45 (2017)); see also In re Parenting & Support of C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d 21 , 26, 522 P.3d 75 (2022) (“A decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices considering the facts and applicable legal standard.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rohrich
green
2 sentences2019State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294, 298-99 , 797 P.2d 1141 (1990)). 2019State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294, 298-99 , 797 P.2d 1141 (1990)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2019State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294, 298-99 , 797 P.2d 1141 (1990)). 2019State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294, 298-99 , 797 P.2d 1141 (1990)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors
green
2 sentences2018Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 669 , 230 P.3d 583 (2010). 2018Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 669 , 230 P.3d 583 (2010). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ryan v. State
green
1 sentence2018A court’s ruling is manifestly unreasonable when it is “ ‘outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and applicable legal standard.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .) A superior court ruling also constitutes abuse of discretion “ ‘if it 31 No. 49951-7-II is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.’ ” Id. at 899-900 (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47 .). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lamb
green
1 sentence2015Id. (quoting In re Marriage ofLittlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 47 , 940 P.2d 1362 (1997)). | 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.